Case Digest (G.R. No. 166246)
Facts:
Antonio Nepomuceno v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 166246, April 30, 2008, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Antonio Nepomuceno (hereafter petitioner) was charged by Information dated November 8, 1996 with estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code, alleging that on October 22, 1994 he, as manager of Lipa Lending Investor, Inc. (Lipa Lending), misappropriated P180,000 belonging to the corporation by causing a check to be issued in his favor as purported overpayment to a borrower, Rommel Villanueva. The Information alleged misapplication and conversion of corporate funds to petitioner’s personal use. The case proceeded to arraignment (petitioner pleaded not guilty on January 13, 1997) and trial before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 85, Lipa City.
The evidence established, and the parties did not dispute, that petitioner was manager of Lipa Lending; that on October 7, 1994 the company, through petitioner, approved and released a loan of P1,167,953 to Villanueva; and that Villanueva subsequently delivered a check for P1,100,000 on October 21, 1994. On October 22, 1994 petitioner approved issuance of three checks alleged to represent change/overpayment: P520,308.08 to Villanueva, P180,000 to petitioner, and P10,000 to Raul Magaling. Petitioner admitted receiving the P180,000 but claimed it was his commission and denied misappropriation, arguing among other things that the loan was payable in installments and that Villanueva had a right to withdraw an overpayment.
The RTC, in a Decision dated July 24, 2002, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) and sentenced him to an indeterminate term and ordered restitution of P180,000 with interest. The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR No. 26671, promulgated July 6, 2004, affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal. Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking to reverse the Court of Appeals decision, raising principally that (1) the P180,000 belonged to Villanueva (so Lipa Lending suffered no prejudice), (2) demand is an essential element of estafa through abuse of confidence a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under Rule 45 review, may petitioner invite this Court to reexamine and reverse the lower courts’ factual findings in this estafa conviction?
- Did the prosecution prove the elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) — specifically, was there misappropriation/prejudice where petitioner received P180,000 and claimed it belonged to the borrower?
- Is a demand by the offended party an essential element of estafa co...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)