Title
Carganillo vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 182424
Decision Date
Sep 22, 2014
Nenita Carganillo convicted of estafa for failing to deliver palay or return P132,000 entrusted by Teresita Lazaro; SC upheld CA's decision, affirming misappropriation and rejecting fraud defense.
estafa
palay
ahente

Case Summary (G.R. No. 182424)

Factual Background

On September 23, 1998, Teresita Lazaro entrusted to the petitioner the amount of P132,000.00 so that the petitioner would buy palay and deliver the same to the Lazaro Palay Buying Station on or before November 28, 1998. The parties’ arrangement was documented in a Kasunduan signed by the petitioner. The Kasunduan stated that the petitioner would earn a commission of P0.20 per kilo of palay bought. It also contained a contingency: if no palay were purchased and delivered on November 28, the petitioner was obliged to return P132,000.00 to Lazaro within one (1) week after November 28.

When palay was neither received nor the P132,000.00 returned on the contractual dates, Lazaro made oral and written demands for the return of the money. The petitioner ignored these demands. Lazaro then filed an affidavit-complaint for estafa before the fiscal office, and thereafter an Information for estafa was filed in court.

Accusation and Information Allegations

The Information alleged that on or about September 23, 1998, in Rizal, Nueva Ecija, and within the jurisdiction of the court, the petitioner received in trust from Teresita Lazaro the sum of P132,000.00 to be used in buying palay for Lazaro on a commission basis and to account for the same on November 28, 1998. It further alleged that contrary to the agreement, after receiving the amount with abuse of confidence and intent to defraud, the petitioner willfully and unlawfully misappropriated the money to her own personal benefit. It charged that despite demands, she failed to comply with her obligation, thereby causing damage and prejudice to Lazaro in the amount of P132,000.00, contrary to law.

Petitioner's Defense at Trial

The petitioner entered a plea of not guilty. She denied entering into a principal-agent agreement with Lazaro and denied receiving the P132,000.00. She claimed that she owed Lazaro a balance of P13,704.32 for fertilizers and rice she had purchased from Lazaro in 1995 and 1996. She also alleged that in November 1996, she was made to sign a blank Kasunduan that bore no written date and no written amount. She further denied personally receiving any written demand letter from Lazaro.

Trial Court Proceedings and Conviction

In a decision dated November 19, 2004, the RTC convicted the petitioner of estafa, finding that the elements of the offense were established. The RTC imposed an indeterminate sentence under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, setting the minimum at imprisonment ranging from four (4) years and one (1) day of prision correccional and the maximum at twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal. The RTC also ordered indemnification of P132,000.00 to Teresita Lazaro representing the amount embezzled and ordered the petitioner to pay costs of suit.

Appeal and Court of Appeals Ruling

On appeal, the CA affirmed the petitioner’s conviction but modified the penalty computation. The CA held that the prosecution properly established the elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. It considered the Kasunduan dated September 23, 1998—admittedly signed by the petitioner—to be clear in its tenor. It found that the petitioner’s failure to comply with the Kasunduan’s terms made out a case for estafa.

The CA rejected the defense that the petitioner signed the Kasunduan in blank. It reasoned that her admission of the existence or authenticity of the documentary exhibits during the prosecution’s formal offer of evidence and her own testimony belied that claim. The CA also treated as immaterial the argument that the petitioner did not personally receive a written letter of demand. It held that even a verbal query as to the whereabouts of the money suspected to be misappropriated was already tantamount to a demand, and that the petitioner failed to refute Lazaro’s testimony that she went to the petitioner’s house to ask for the palay and/or the return of P132,000.00.

On penalty, however, the CA found error in the RTC’s computation. It imposed an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum and eight (8) years of prision mayor as maximum, plus one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00, which translated to an additional eleven (11) years, or a total of nineteen (19) years.

Issues Raised in the Supreme Court

Through a Rule 45 petition, the petitioner raised a sole issue: whether the CA erred in affirming the conviction despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove guilt of estafa beyond reasonable doubt. She maintained that she was not engaged in the palay buy-and-sell business and that the Kasunduan did not reflect their real agreement, which she characterized as a simple money loan. She further argued that the elements of estafa were not proven because she never received the P132,000.00 from Lazaro, emphasizing that receipt of money or property in trust, on commission, or under an obligation to deliver or return is an element of estafa.

Legal Framework for Estafa with Abuse of Confidence

The Court held that, under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, estafa committed with abuse of confidence required the following elements: (a) that money, goods, or other personal property be received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver or to return the same; (b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on the offender’s part of such receipt; (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial result in prejudice to another; and (d) that there be demand by the offended party to the offender.

Assessment of Evidence and Presence of Elements

The Court found that all the elements were present. It held that the petitioner received in trust the P132,000.00 from Lazaro for the purpose of buying palay and that she misappropriated it when she failed to return the sum to Lazaro upon demand.

The Court gave weight to the Kasunduan presented by the prosecution. It was admitted by the petitioner. The Kasunduan expressly reflected that the petitioner had received P132,000.00 in trust for buying palay, along with obligations to deliver the palay to the Lazaro Palay Buying Station by November 28, 1998, and to return the money one week after that date in case she failed to purchase and deliver palay.

In discussing the evidentiary significance of the Kasunduan, the Court reiterated that a contract is the formal expression of the parties’ rights, duties, and obligations and is the best evidence of the parties’ intention. It applied the principle that when the terms of an agreement are reduced into writing, the written agreement is considered to contain the full terms agreed upon, and no evidence of those terms other than the written contract may be introduced between the parties and their successors in interest. The Court acknowledged that the Parol Evidence Rule admits exceptions under Section 9, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, such as when the written agreement fails to express the true intent and agreement of the parties or when there is intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, imperfection, or the existence of other terms agreed after execution. However, it concluded that the petitioner’s evidence did not satisfy these exceptions.

Rejection of the Petitioner's Claim of a Simple Loan and Blank Kasunduan

The Court held that the RTC and the CA findings were supported by the record and deserved respect and finality. It noted that the RTC found receipts presented by the petitioner to prove a loan obligation to be vague, undated, and unsigned. It also noted that witnesses presented by the petitioner to support her version that she signed the Kasunduan were not certain of the actual transaction. These findings were affirmed in toto by the CA, which gave the Court “great reason not to disturb these findings.”

The Court also rejected the petitioner’s contention that she was a victim of fraud. She argued that Lazaro had deceived her into signing a blank Kasunduan and that even if the document lacked date and amount, she had signed it for bank show purposes. The Court found no such vitiated consent. It invoked the doctrine that for fraud to vitiate consent, the deception must be the causal inducement (dolo causante) to the contract and must be serious, sufficient to impress an ordinarily prudent person into error considering the circumstances. Applying the record, the Court found no vitiated consent.

The Court relied on the petitioner’s own narrative in her Memorandum, where she stated that after she signed the Kasunduan, Lazaro later made her execute a deed of sale over her property. The petitioner refused to sign the deed of sale. The Court held that this statement negated the petitioner’s self-se

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms