Title
Gamaro vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 211917
Decision Date
Feb 27, 2017
Fineza sued Norma Gamaro for estafa after jewelry business proceeds were misappropriated; SC upheld conviction under Article 315(1)(b), affirming civil liability despite acquittal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-9137)

Key Dates and Applicable Law

  • Demand letter: February 16, 2004 (date used for computation of legal interest).
  • The challenged appellate decision and resolution were rendered in the 2010s; the 1987 Philippine Constitution is the constitutional basis applied by the Court.

Short Statement of the Issue Presented

Whether conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) (misappropriation/conversion) is legally permissible where the information charged estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) (false pretenses), and whether related evidentiary and privilege challenges warranted reversal.

Factual Background

Fineza entered into a business arrangement with Norma Gamaro and Norma’s daughters (Rowena and Josephine). The arrangement: Fineza would supply foreclosed jewelry (obtained from M. Lhuillier Pawnshop) which Norma would sell to co-employees; proceeds were to be divided such that Fineza received 50% and the remaining 50% was split among Norma, Rowena, and Josephine. As security for the jewelry entrusted to Norma and Rowena, several checks drawn on a joint bank account in favor of Fineza were issued reflecting appraised values. The venture initially prospered, but when Fineza sought to wind up the business she discovered that (a) the Gamaros had engaged in similar dealings with other suppliers; (b) certain checks issued to Fineza were dishonored because the account had been closed; (c) numerous pieces of jewelry were pawned to pawnshops and private individuals contrary to their agreement; and (d) Fineza had to redeem some pawned items with her own funds. Fineza sent a demand letter (dated February 16, 2004) for P2,292,519.00, which was not answered.

Information and Plea

The Information filed charged the accused with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) (i.e., by false pretenses or fraudulent acts such as falsely pretending to possess property, credit, business, etc.). When arraigned, the petitioners pleaded not guilty; trial on the merits followed.

RTC Judgment and Reliefs

The RTC found Norma Gamaro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa under Section 1(b), Article 315 (misappropriation/conversion) and sentenced her to an indeterminate term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The RTC exonerated Josephine Umali of criminal liability but directed Norma and Josephine to pay jointly and solidarily: P1,259,841.46 with legal interest from the date of demand (February 16, 2004) until fully paid; P50,000.00 moral damages; P25,000.00 exemplary damages; P50,000.00 attorney’s fees; and costs. The RTC also ordered a warrant for Rowena and a hold-departure order against Rowena.

Court of Appeals Ruling and Appeal

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision; the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied. Petitioners then filed a Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court raising, inter alia, alleged variance between the information (para. 2(a)) and the conviction (para. 1(b)), improper reliance on administrative findings, improper reception of testimony by Atty. Baldeo on grounds of privileged communication, and alleged contradictory/incompetent prosecution evidence regarding receipt of jewelry.

Constitutional Guarantee and Right to Be Informed

The Court applied the 1987 Constitution’s Bill of Rights, specifically the right of an accused “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” (Section 14, Article III), emphasizing that the constitutional guarantee is designed to enable adequate preparation of defense. The Court reiterated that the recital of facts in the information, not the formal label or statutory paragraph cited, determines the real nature of the accusation.

Doctrine on Sufficiency of an Information and Controlling Allegations

The Court reiterated settled doctrine: the body of the information controls; the factual allegations determine the offense even if the caption or the statute cited is not precisely accurate. Citing Flores v. Hon. Layosa and related jurisprudence, the Court explained that the designation or caption is a conclusion of law by the prosecutor and is immaterial if the facts alleged in the information clearly describe the acts constituting a different statutory theory of the offense.

Statutory Elements of Estafa by False Pretenses (Art. 315, para. 2(a)) and by Misappropriation (Art. 315, para. 1(b))

  • Para. 2(a): Elements include false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the fraud, reliance by the offended party on those pretenses, and resultant damage.
  • Para. 1(b): Elements include receipt in trust/on commission/for administration or other obligation to return or deliver property, misappropriation or conversion (or denial of receipt) to the prejudice of another, and a demand by the offended party.

Court’s Analysis on the Alleged Variance Between Charge and Conviction

The Supreme Court found no unconstitutional variance. It held that the Information’s factual averments—Fineza entrusting jewelry to Norma with the obligation for Norma to sell and remit proceeds, the issuance of checks as security, the pawning of the jewelry, dishonored checks, and Fineza’s having to redeem items—adequately alleged a trust/commission relationship and misappropriation or conversion. Thus, although the Information cited para. 2(a), its factual recitals supported conviction under para. 1(b). The accused were sufficiently apprised of the nature and cause of the accusation for preparation of defense.

Evidence Establishing Misappropriation/Conversion

The Court found the prosecution had proven misappropriation by a preponderance of circumstantial and direct evidence: Fineza’s testimony about the transaction; pawnshop tickets indicating pledging of items; index cards listing jewelry and appraised values; dishonored checks; the failure to return jewelry or account upon demand; and Fineza’s redemption of pawned items with her own money. The Court noted the well-established principle that failure to account upon demand is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation and that conversion includes using or disposing of another’s property as one’s own. A presumption of misappropriation arises when one entrusted with property fails to return proceeds or items and does not account for their whereabouts.

Attorney-Client Privilege Claim Regarding Atty. Baldeo’s Testimony

Petitioners argued that Atty. Baldeo’s testimony violated attorney-client privilege because she allegedly gave Norma legal advice. The Court applied the elements of privilege (existence of attorney-client relationship, confidentiality of communication, and seeking of legal advice in a professional capacity) and found the record did not sustain the privilege claim. Atty. Baldeo’s testimony consisted of observations and corroboration—she saw Norma displaying jewelry and recounting their origin; the testimo

...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