G.R. No. 204755 - Tria vs. People

On or about March 8, 2000, in Valenzuela City, Metro Manila, petitioner Soledad Tria received on consignment from Seven Sphere Enterprises (represented by Gertrudes Meneses) a total of 22 pieces of jewelry.
The consignment agreement expressly obligated the petitioner either to sell the jewelry and remit the proceeds of the sale or return any unsold pieces within six (6) days.

The total face value of the jewelry consigned was initially valued at P47,440.00.
The petitioner returned eight (8) pieces of jewelry, valued at P16,380.00, thereby leaving an unremitted balance of P31,060.00.
To cover the remaining balance, the petitioner issued four (4) post-dated checks from Banco Filipino, each for P7,765.00, with specific dates ranging from March 30, 2000, to May 15, 2000.
When presented for payment, these checks were dishonored due to the account being closed.
Following the dishonor of the checks, the petitioner returned an additional three (3) pieces of jewelry valued at P7,684.50, ultimately leaving an outstanding balance of approximately P23,375.50 as claimed by the complainant.

The prosecution presented the testimony of Gertrudes Meneses, who acted as the Cash Custodian for Seven Sphere Enterprises and testified on the consignment agreement and the subsequent failure of the petitioner to remit full proceeds or return all unsold jewelry.
Documentary evidence, including the “Receipt of Goods on Consignment” (Exhibit aB), clearly outlined the terms under which the petitioner received the jewelry and her obligations to remit sale proceeds or return unsold merchandise.
The evidence established that despite repeated demands for payment from Seven Sphere, the petitioner neither returned all the consigned jewelry nor provided a satisfactory account for the discrepancy in the amounts.

The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge of estafa, but she failed to present any evidence in her defense during trial, having waived her right after several opportunities.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City, Branch 172, found the petitioner guilty of estafa beyond reasonable doubt and imposed an indeterminate sentence ranging from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional (minimum) to eight (8) years of prision mayor (maximum).
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision in its decision dated April 20, 2012 and later denied a motion for reconsideration by the petitioner in its resolution dated September 18, 2012.

Whether all elements of estafa (swindling) were established beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioner.
Whether the petitioner’s actions amounted to misappropriation or conversion under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.

Whether the petitioner’s partial return of the jewelry or remittance of part of the proceeds negates the fraudulent intent required for estafa.
Whether engaging in the contractual obligation, albeit partially performed, provides a defense against the charge of fraud.

Whether the lower courts correctly computed the minimum and maximum periods of the indeterminate penalty.
Whether the incremental penalty should have been applied, especially considering that the amount in excess of P22,000 was only P1,370, which is short of the threshold for adding an extra year.

Whether the petitioner’s claim of a verbal understanding with Seven Sphere (to offset the debt by salary deductions) can exculpate her from criminal liability.
How such a claim may or may not affect her criminal responsibility versus her civil liability in this matter.