G.R. No. 207418 - Barlin vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 207418)

Facts (Transactions, Agreement and Practice)

After petitioner’s store burned, Gacayan allowed petitioner to place orders under Gacayan’s account; transactions were documented by TRAs under which petitioner was to hold goods in trust, sell or dispose of them, remit proceeds by the due date (less commission), or return unsold goods within the agreed period.
The prosecution submitted 22 TRAs; petitioner personally signed only two (TRAs Nos. 0081 and 0083). The remaining TRAs bore signatures of petitioner’s salespersons (Castillo or Varga).
Gacayan also purchased Avon products from petitioner; parties purportedly agreed to offset Avon purchases and returned unsold Triumph products against petitioner’s payables. Petitioner maintained she returned unsold items totaling P43,000 and that she delivered Avon products worth P25,900 to Gacayan, which were not deducted from her payables.

Prosecution’s Case and Evidence

The prosecution adduced the TRAs and testimony of Gacayan and Taberna to establish that petitioner procured goods under trust and failed to remit proceeds or return unsold items.
Gacayan alleged petitioner failed to pay timely for certain goods amounting to P74,955.00 (and at trial claimed P78,055.00). She presented TRAs to support the amounts. Post-dated checks issued by petitioner were dishonored for being drawn on a closed account, prompting filing of a criminal complaint for estafa and an earlier BP 22 complaint.
Taberna testified that Castillo signed several TRAs on petitioner’s behalf (TRAs Nos. 0064, 0065, 0072, 0073, 0077), attempting to connect petitioner to those other TRAs.

Defense Case and Evidence

Petitioner admitted receiving merchandise only under TRAs 0081 and 0083 (as evidenced by her signatures). She denied authorizing Castillo and Varga to sign other TRAs.
She maintained that she returned unsold products and that an offset arrangement existed for Avon items she sold to Gacayan. She also presented a Compromise Agreement dated October 16, 2002, in the BP 22 (dishonored checks) case, wherein they agreed on civil liability and a compromise amount of P50,000 which petitioner claimed she was paying off.

RTC Ruling (May 10, 2006)

The RTC found petitioner guilty of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) for receiving goods in trust and failing to remit proceeds or return unsold items. The RTC held petitioner’s partial payments and offsets did not exculpate her from criminal liability and that the compromise agreement in the BP 22 case did not bar criminal prosecution for estafa. The RTC imposed an indeterminate prison term (minimum: 4 years 2 months prision correccional; maximum: 13 years reclusion temporal) and ordered indemnity of P74,055.00.

Court of Appeals Ruling and Modification (Dec. 6, 2012; Amended June 10, 2013)

The CA affirmed petitioner’s liability under Article 315(1)(b), relying on Section 13 of PD 115 that the failure to turn over proceeds or return goods under a trust receipt constitutes estafa.
The CA found insufficiency in proving the precise amount owed, due to inconsistent computations by Gacayan. The CA limited proven obligations to those reflected in TRAs it found properly proven: TRAs 0081, 0083 and those identified by Taberna as signed by Castillo. The CA reduced the indemnity to P24,975.00.
The CA held the BP 22 compromise did not novate the TRAs into a loan or absolve criminal liability. The CA modified the penalty; upon reconsideration the CA amended the minimum penalty to six months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to six years, eight months and 21 days of prision mayor as maximum.

Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court

Whether the agreements between petitioner and Gacayan were trust receipt agreements.
Whether petitioner was convicted of an offense not specifically alleged in the Information.
Whether estafa was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Legal Standard for Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) RPC

The Supreme Court reiterated the essential elements: (a) receipt of money, goods or personal property in trust/commission/administration or under any obligation to deliver/return; (b) misappropriation/conversion or denial of receipt by the offender; (c) prejudice/damage to another; and (d) demand by the offended party on the offender.

Supreme Court’s Findings on Evidentiary Sufficiency and Signature Authorization

The Court held that only TRAs 0081 and 0083 were proven to have been signed by petitioner; the other TRAs lacked sufficient evidence to prove petitioner’s authorization for Castillo or Varga to sign on her behalf. Taberna’s testimony alone was insufficient and uncorroborated, falling short of the standard of moral certainty required in criminal prosecution. Any reasonable doubt on those TRAs was resolved in petitioner’s favor.
With respect to TRAs 0081 and 0083, the Court found their terms clearly established a trust relationship (holding goods in trust, obligation to sell and remit proceeds, obligation to return unsold items upon demand) and thus were properly characterized as trust receipt agreements and not barter or exchange.

Conversion, Demand and Damages Findings

The Court found petitioner failed to turn over proceeds of sale under TRAs 0081 and 0083 upon demand. Petitioner had issued post-dated checks worth P50,000 which were dishonored for being drawn on a closed account, and she admitted the existence of the BP 22 case concerning those checks. The dishonored checks and admitted attempts to pay were taken as evidence of misappropriation or conversion of proceeds.
The Court quantified prejudice (actual damage) at P8,275.00 for the proven TRAs (the dispositive paragraph orders indemnity in this amount), finding that Gacayan suffered loss by parting with goods and not receiving proceeds or unsold items despite demand.

Rulings on the Information, Compromise Agreement and Other Defenses

The Court rejected petitioner’s contention that she was charged with an offense not specified in the Information: the Information clearly charged estafa under Article 315(1)(b) for violation of trust receipt agreements.
The Court held the compromise agreement in the BP 22 case did not novate

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 207418)

Case Caption, Court and Date

G.R. No. 207418; Decision promulgated June 23, 2021 by the Supreme Court, Third Division; opinion penned by Justice Hernando; Justices Inting, Delos Santos, and J. Lopez concur; Justice Leonen on wellness leave.
Petition challenges the Court of Appeals’ December 6, 2012 Decision and June 10, 2013 Amended Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 31462, which affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, Branch 151, May 10, 2006 Decision in Criminal Case No. 119540 finding Rosella Barlin (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Procedural History

RTC (May 10, 2006): Convicted petitioner of Estafa under Art. 315(1)(b) and sentenced to indeterminate penalty (minimum: 4 years, 2 months prision correccional; maximum: 13 years reclusion temporal) and ordered to indemnify complainant P74,055.00; decision penned by Judge Franchito N. Diamante.
CA (December 6, 2012): Affirmed conviction but modified penalty and indemnity to P24,975.00; authored by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente with concurrences.
CA Amended Decision (June 10, 2013): Further modified minimum penalty to six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to six years, eight months and 21 days of prision mayor as maximum; ordered indemnity P24,975.00.
Supreme Court petition filed by Rosella Barlin seeking reversal.

Charge / Information

Information alleged that sometime on March 3 to May 8, 1999, in San Juan, Metro Manila, petitioner received in trust from Ruth S. Cagayan (sic) (private complainant) Triumph products covered by various trust receipts amounting to P74,055.00, with obligation to sell or return and remit proceeds, but petitioner misappropriated, misapplied and converted the amount to her own use with intent to gain and defraud despite demands, thus committing Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) RPC. (Record of Information contained at pages cited in source.)

Plea and Trial on the Merits

Petitioner pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to trial on the merits before the RTC.
Both parties presented witnesses and documentary evidence including Trust Receipt Agreements (TRAs) and testimony regarding transactions, returned goods, post-dated checks, and a later compromise agreement in a related BP 22 case.

Facts / Antecedents (as presented by the parties)

Both complainant Ruth S. Gacayan (also spelled Gacayan/Cagayan in sources) and petitioner were dealers: Gacayan a Triumph products dealer; petitioner a group and franchise dealer of Avon products.
After petitioner’s store was gutted by fire, Gacayan agreed to place orders of Triumph products on petitioner’s behalf through Gacayan’s credit line; transactions were purportedly covered by Trust Receipt Agreements (TRAs) under which petitioner would pay for items or return unsold items within 30 days.
Prosecution presented 22 TRAs; only two (TRA Nos. 0081 and 0083) were signed by petitioner; the others bore signatures of salespersons Margie Castillo or Eva Varga(l) (Vargal).
Gacayan also allegedly purchased Avon items from petitioner and claimed offsetting of Avon merchandise and returned unsold Triumph products against what petitioner owed.
From March 6, 1999 to December 16, 1999 petitioner returned unsold items regularly; Gacayan claimed petitioner failed to pay on time for other items totalling P74,955.00 (and in trial testimony claimed P78,055.00 at one point).
Petitioner issued checks to pay obligations which bounced because they were drawn against a closed account; Gacayan filed criminal complaint for estafa.
Petitioner admitted only receiving and signing TRAs 0081 and 0083; claimed Gacayan received Avon products from her valued at P25,900.00 which was not deducted from her payables and which lacked TRAs signed by Gacayan; petitioner insisted she had returned all unsold products valued at P43,000.00 and no longer owed Gacayan.
A separate criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) was filed by Gacayan against petitioner in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 57, San Juan; parties entered a Compromise Agreement dated October 16, 2002 in that BP 22 case; petitioner claimed she was paying the compromise amount of P50,000.00.

Evidence for the Prosecution

Testimony of private complainant Ruth S. Gacayan (Gacayan) that she placed orders for Triumph products on petitioner’s behalf through her credit line and transactions were covered by TRAs; she testified to amounts due and to the issuance of returned unsold items and offsets.
Presentation of 22 TRAs; only TRA Nos. 0081 and 0083 bore petitioner’s signature.
Testimony of Gina Taberna (saleslady) identifying that Castillo signed certain TRAs (0064, 0065, 0072, 0073, 0077) purportedly on behalf and with authority of petitioner.
Evidence that petitioner issued post-dated checks intended to pay obligations which were subsequently dishonored for being drawn against a closed account.
Notice of Final Demand dated February 28, 2000 presented but court found it did not prove receipt by petitioner.

Evidence for the Defense

Petitioner’s testimony that she was an Avon dealer and obtained goods from Gacayan to continue business after fire using Gacayan’s account, with agreement to pay within a month.
Admission of signature only on TRAs 0081 and 0083; denial of authorization for Castillo and Vargal to sign on her behalf; claim that Avon products valued P25,900.00 were procured by Gacayan but not deducted; claim of returning unsold products valued P43,000.00.
Presentation of Compromise Agreement in MeTC BP 22 case and evidence of partial payment under that compromise.

Issues Ra