G.R. No. 150900 - Luces vs. Damole

In July 1993, petitioner Cynthia Luces approached private complainant Cherry Damole at the latter’s workplace, Robinson’s Department Store in Cebu City.
They entered into an agreement whereby petitioner would sell Purchase Order (PO) cards on a commission basis and hold such cards in trust for Damole, with the commission represented as a marked-up price.

Sell the PO cards to her customers.
Remit to the complainant the proceeds of any sale, less her commission.
Hold the proceeds and unsold PO cards in trust until they could be returned or accounted for.

In September 1993, petitioner received 870 PO cards with a total face value of ₱412,305.00.

Initially, petitioner complied with her obligations under the Trust Receipt Agreements.
Later, petitioner defaulted by not remitting the proceeds of sales to Damole.
As a result, Damole, through her lawyer, made repeated demands which went unheeded, prompting her to file both a civil case for collection of sum of money and a criminal complaint.

A criminal information charging petitioner with estafa was filed on March 3, 1995, alleging misappropriation of the PO cards and money amounting to ₱412,305.00.
Petitioner filed a motion for the dismissal and/or suspension of the criminal case on April 27, 1995, arguing that the pending civil case was determinative of her criminal liability.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially suspended the criminal case but, upon reconsideration, reversed its decision, setting the case for arraignment where petitioner pleaded not guilty.

The existence of the trust receipt agreements.
That petitioner received the PO cards and later defaulted by failing to remit sale proceeds or return the unsold cards.
That petitioner converted some PO cards for her personal use and allowed her relatives to use them.

The relationship was a contract of sale transferring ownership, not merely a trust, and thus should be a purely civil liability.
She was authorized to sell these cards on installment and that any failure in collection (e.g., from Evelyn Tamara) did not amount to criminal misappropriation.
No actual damage was caused as she purportedly remitted partial payments regularly.

The RTC convicted petitioner of estafa, sentencing her based on a specific period of imprisonment under the applicable penalty ranges.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty imposed by the RTC, citing that all elements of estafa through misappropriation and abuse of trust were present in the case.
The CA modified the sentence to an indeterminate penalty ranging from four years and two months (minimum) to twenty years (maximum), eventually leading to the petitioner's current appeal.

The case centered on whether the disposal of the PO cards was in accordance with the trust agreement and whether petitioner remitted the proceeds.
Evidence showed that while most PO cards were sold in accordance with the agreement, a specific batch (PO cards under Trust Receipt No. 4103 valued at ₱33,600.00) was used by petitioner and her relatives without proper payment, constituting misappropriation.
The crime charged under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) required the establishment of misappropriation or conversion of property received in trust or on commission, causing prejudice to the owner.

Whether the CA has decided a question of substance not previously determined by the Supreme Court, or whether its ruling is inconsistent with established legal principles and Supreme Court precedents, being founded merely on speculation and conjecture.

Whether the CA gravely erred in affirming, with modification, the RTC’s decision, particularly by denying due course to petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the judgment.

Whether the CA erred in giving insufficient weight to the issue of the prejudicial nature of the civil case filed by the complainant in determining petitioner’s criminal liability.

Whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioner’s assertion that her liability is purely civil and not criminally punishable.