Case Summary (G.R. No. 76647)
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Cecilio J. Amorsolo, was accused of estafa under Section 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code for failing to return two acrylic paintings valued at P19,000.00, which were entrusted to him by Raul Isidro for sale on a commission basis. The case arose when Isidro learned that Amorsolo had reportedly sold the paintings without remitting the proceeds as required by their agreement.
Trial Court Proceedings
In the trial court, Isidro served as the sole witness for the prosecution while Amorsolo represented himself during the defense. Evidence presented demonstrated that on March 23, 1983, Isidro entrusted the paintings to Amorsolo with a commission agreement. It was established that Amorsolo initially attempted to sell the paintings but subsequently failed to remit the proceeds to Isidro, leading to civil actions initiated by the latter.
Findings of the Trial Court
The trial court found Amorsolo guilty, emphasizing that he failed to return the paintings after a formal demand. Despite attempts to return one painting, he did not comply with the obligation to remit the total amount or provide both paintings as per the initial agreement. The court concluded that delayed compliance constituted misappropriation and conversion, leading to a conviction for estafa. Amorsolo was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to compensate Isidro.
Court of Appeals Decision
Amorsolo appealed the trial court's decision, challenging the evidence of misappropriation and conversion. The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's ruling, stating that Amorsolo's failure to return the paintings or remit payment upon demand constituted estafa. They refuted Amorsolo’s defense that circumstances inhibited his ability to return the paintings, clarifying that such arguments did not absolve him of liability for conversion.
Assertions on the Crime of Estafa
Amorsolo contended that the nature of his liability was civil rather than penal, arguing that misappropriation had not been sufficiently proven. However, the appellate court reaffirmed that estafa requires demonstrating appropriation of another's property injuriously. The court maintained that Amorsolo had received the paintings under a trust relationship, and his failure to remit or return the paintings, especially after receiving a formal demand, solidified the criminality of his actions.
Final Resolution by the Supreme Court
Upon reviewing the case, the Su
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 76647)
Case Overview
- This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Cecilio J. Amorsolo against the decision of the Court of Appeals.
- The trial court had found Amorsolo guilty of the crime of estafa under Section 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
- The case was centered around the alleged misappropriation of two acrylic paintings valued at P19,000.00, which were entrusted to Amorsolo by Raul Isidro.
Facts of the Case
- On March 23, 1983, Raul Isidro entrusted two acrylic paintings to Cecilio Amorsolo on a commission basis for sale, with a clear obligation to return the paintings if unsold or to remit the proceeds if sold.
- Isidro and Amorsolo agreed on a commission rate of 30%.
- Amorsolo attempted to sell the paintings but did not succeed initially, leading him to consign them to the Heritage Gallery.
Prosecution's Case
- Raul Isidro was the sole witness for the prosecution, detailing the trust placed in Amorsolo and the subsequent failure to remit the proceeds after selling the paintings.
- A formal demand was made via a letter from Isidro’s lawyer on May 18, 1983, requiring Amorsolo to remit payment within ten days, which he failed to do.
- Evidence indicated that Amorsolo sold one painting to J.P. Lomotan, but the check received bounced due to the account being closed.
Defense's Argument
- Amorsolo was the only witness for the defense, arguing that he did not misappropriate the paintings as he was i