G.R. No. 81471 - Chong Guan Trading vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Maria C. Osorio was charged with estafa for defrauding private complainant Josefina O. Gabriel by soliciting and misusing an investment of Php200,000.00.
The offense allegedly occurred between November 19, 2001 and January 11, 2002 in Manila, where Osorio, acting as an insurance agent for Philam Life, induced Gabriel to invest money under false representations.

In December 2000, Osorio introduced herself to Gabriel at her stall in Paco Market by presenting a company ID and a calling card, thereby establishing her as an agent of Philippine American Life and General Insurance Company (Philam Life).
During their encounter, Osorio offered insurance coverage; later, Gabriel availed insurance plans (Tri-Life Plan and Excelife Gold Package) from Philam Life, for which she consistently paid premiums from February to November 2001.
On November 19, 2001, Osorio presented an investment opportunity claiming that funds invested in Philam Life Fund Management would earn 20% annually and that the earnings might be used to pay Gabriel’s insurance premiums.

Enticed by the promise of high returns, Gabriel tendered Php200,000.00 to Osorio, who issued receipts on behalf of Philam Life.
Later, Gabriel discovered that her insurance policies had lapsed due to non-payment of premiums, prompting her to inquire about the status of her investment.
Osorio explained that the investment had been diverted to Philippine Money Investment Asset Management (PMIAM), citing a higher yield offered by this other company.

After receiving a partial payment (Php13,000.00) from PMIAM, Gabriel insisted on a full refund of her initial investment. Further correspondence from PMIAM indicated that the remaining amount was to be released later, but Gabriel was ultimately unable to recover her funds.
Osorio, aside from being a Philam Life agent, admitted that she acted also as a referral agent for PMIAM, earning a commission for Gabriel’s investment.
Despite Osorio’s claim that she acted in good faith and that Gabriel consented to the diversion, the evidence suggested that the original representation regarding the placement of funds was misleading.

At trial, the prosecution presented Gabriel and a Philam Life official (Fernandez) to testify that Osorio misrepresented the investment placement, causing Gabriel to part with her money and consequently forgo timely premium payments.
The Regional Trial Court rendered a judgment on April 19, 2011, finding Osorio guilty of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing her to arresto mayor (with a range of imprisonment) and ordering her to reimburse Gabriel Php200,000.00 plus interest.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on January 30, 2013, and after denying Osorio’s motion for reconsideration, she elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review.

In her petition, Osorio contended that she did not employ deceit as alleged since she did not use a fictitious name or misrepresent her authority and maintained that Gabriel later consented to the investment diversion.
The People, through the Solicitor General, argued that the primary issue was factual, with the evidentiary record clearly establishing that Gabriel was induced to part with her money based on Osorio’s misleading representations.

Whether Osorio’s representations regarding investing Gabriel’s money in Philam Life Fund Management, when in fact the funds were diverted to PMIAM, constitute the element of deceit required for estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether the fact that Gabriel later allegedly consented to the diversion of funds negates or mitigates the presence of fraudulent misrepresentation.

Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in convicting Osorio based on the factual findings establishing misrepresentation and damage, despite potential arguments that only damage to the complainant was proven.
Whether the conversion of the charge from estafa by means of deceit under Article 315(2)(a) to other deceits under Article 318 is justified under the rule on variance.

Whether the factual issues underlying the establishment of deceit and the subsequent damage should allow the Supreme Court to undertake a review beyond mere questions of law.