Case Digest (G.R. No. 157781)
Facts:
Robert Crisanto D. Lee, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines and Atoz Trading Corporation, Respondents, G.R. No. 157781, April 11, 2005, Supreme Court Second Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.At the instance of Atoz Trading Corporation (ATC), ten separate Informations were filed on September 27, 1994, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 159, against Robert Crisanto D. Lee in his capacity as ATC’s marketing manager; the cases were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 107020 to 107029 (one, No. 107023, was later dismissed on prosecution motion). The Informations alleged that on various dates Lee received telegraphic-transfer payments from Ocean Feed Mills addressed to “Atoz Trading and/or Robert Lee” or “Robert Lee,” and misappropriated or converted those funds to his own use, contrary to Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
Lee was arraigned on February 20, 1995 and pleaded not guilty. During joint trial (except for the dismissed count), the prosecution presented witnesses including Johnny Jaotegan (ATC president), a UCPB teller, Ocean Feed Mills’ corporate secretary, and ATC’s accounting clerk; their testimony showed that Ocean Feed Mills’ telegraphic transfers were credited to Lee’s UCPB savings account and that ATC’s subsidiary ledger still showed Ocean Feed Mills’ unpaid balance. After the prosecution rested, Lee filed a demurrer to evidence which the trial court denied on January 23, 1996. Lee testified in his defense that he withdrew credited remittances and turned them over to ATC’s cashier, and claimed he had informed ATC officers about the arrangement.
On July 23, 1996, the RTC convicted Lee of nine counts of estafa by conversion under Article 315(1)(b) and imposed indeterminate penalties and orders of actual damages for each count. Lee appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in CA-G.R. CR No. 19947 (Decision penned by Justice Cancio C. Garcia, with Justices Bernardo P. Abesamis and Rebecca De Guia-Salvador concurring), dismissed the appeal in a decision dated September 13, 2002 and denied reconsideration. The CA affirmed the trial court’s findings that the elements of estafa by abuse of confidence were proven, that misappropriation was established by the accused’s admissions and corroborating witnesses, and that a prior formal demand was not required (the CA relied on precedents including Tubb v. People and Barrameda v. Court of Appeals).
Lee filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to the Supreme Court, raising primarily (1) whether conviction for estafa by conversion is proper absent a prior forma...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is a prior formal demand a condition precedent to convict an accused of estafa by conversion under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code?
- Were the CA’s Decision and Resolution issued with grave abuse o...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)