Case Digest (G.R. No. 80544)
Facts:
Rosemarie M. Lee v. Hon. Josefina Cruz Rodil, G.R. No. 80544, July 05, 1989, Supreme Court Third Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Rosemarie M. Lee was charged by information with estafa for acts allegedly committed on July 26, 1982 in Manila. The information alleged that, as authorized representative of C.S. Lee Enterprises, Inc., petitioner opened Letter of Credit No. 63251 (P154,711.97) with Philippine Bank of Communications, received documents and merchandise (23 cartons of lab culture media), and executed a trust receipt dated July 26, 1982 obligating her to hold the goods in trust, to sell them for the bank's account, and to account for or return the proceeds or goods on or before October 24, 1982; she was accused of disposing of the goods and failing to remit the sale proceeds to the bank, thereby defrauding the bank.
Petitioner moved to quash the information, arguing that breach of a trust receipt gives rise only to civil liability and that Presidential Decree No. 115 (the Trust Receipts Law), specifically its penalty provision, was unconstitutional insofar as it repudiated the protection against imprisonment for debt. The trial court denied the motion to quash in an order dated August 21, 1987 and denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration on October 12, 1987. The Solicitor General answered and the Solicitor General and parties litigated the applicability of prior jurisprudence (notably People v. Cuevo and Sia v. People) and the effect of P.D. No. 115, Sec. 13. The matter was then brought to the Court by petition (as reflected in the record) for resolution of the legal questions presented...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does a violation of a trust receipt agreement, by failing to turn over proceeds of sale or returning goods, constitute the crime of estafa?
- Is Section 13 of P.D. No. 115 unconstitutional because it subjects an entrustee to imprisonment in a manner violative of the constitutional prohibition against imprison...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)