Case Digest (G.R. No. 102784)
Facts:
Rosa Lim v. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 102784, February 28, 1996, Supreme Court First Division, Hermosísima, Jr., J., writing for the Court.On January 26, 1989, an Information for estafa (Article 315, par. 1[b], Revised Penal Code) was filed in Branch 92, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City (Criminal Case No. Q-89-2216) against petitioner Rosa Lim. The private complainant, Victoria Suarez, alleged that on or about October 8, 1987 she entrusted to petitioner a 3.35-carat diamond ring (valued at P169,000) and a bracelet (P170,000) under a written receipt (Exhibit A) stating the items were received in trust to be sold on commission; the bracelet was returned December 15, 1987 but the ring was not returned nor its proceeds remitted despite demand.
After arraignment and trial, the trial court found petitioner guilty of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) and sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty; it also ordered restitution of the ring or its value. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty range in accordance with Article 315(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied (Resolution dated November 11, 1991).
Petitioner then filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court attacking (1) the appellate court’s failure to pass upon certain assigned errors, (2) the appellate court’s refusal to apply the parol evidence rule waiver argument arising from cross-examination, and (3) alleged failure to apply the strict standard of proof for criminal conviction (citing People v. Austria). The factual dispute at trial centered on whether the transaction evidenced by Exhibit A created an agency to sell on commission (exposure to estafa liability if the items were misappropriated) or instead was a...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the transaction between Rosa Lim and Victoria Suarez an agency to sell on commission (as written in Exhibit A) or a sale on credit?
- Did petitioner return the diamond ring to Suarez through Aurelia Nadera, thereby negating misappropriation...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)