Title
Rivac vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 224673
Decision Date
Jan 22, 2018
Cecilia Rivac convicted of Estafa for failing to return or remit proceeds from consigned jewelry, despite recantation by complainant. Penalty modified under RA 10951.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 224673)

Factual Background

Cecilia Rivac was charged with Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly misappropriating jewelry valued at P439,500.00 consigned to her on August 4, 2007, by Asuncion C. FariAas for sale on consignment. The consignment agreement required Rivac to remit the proceeds or return the unsold jewelry within seven days. Despite repeated demands, Rivac neither returned the jewelry nor remitted the proceeds. She later proposed to pay with a parcel of land covered by an Original Certificate of Title, which FariAas rejected due to an ongoing land dispute.

Rivac contended her liability was only civil, asserting that the transaction was actually a loan secured by the land title she handed over to FariAas. She claimed that she signed a blank consignment document merely as a formality and had already paid some interest on the loan but could not repay it in full. FariAas, on the other hand, insisted the consignment agreement was valid and that Rivac failed to fulfill her agreed obligations.

RTC Proceedings and Ruling

The RTC found Rivac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa, sentenced her to an indeterminate term of imprisonment (4 years and 2 months to 20 years), and ordered payment of P439,500.00 plus costs. The court stressed:

  • The consignment document bearing Rivac’s signature constituted evidence of the valid agreement.
  • The parol evidence rule barred Rivac from altering the written agreement’s terms.
  • Rivac’s purported loan defense was unsubstantiated and contradicted by her conduct and the consignment document.

Upon Rivac’s motion, the RTC allowed reopening of proceedings before finality of judgment to admit additional testimony from FariAas, who recanted part of her earlier testimony claiming the consignment agreement never took effect due to unpaid loan balances. However, the RTC, after evaluating the recantation, found it unreliable and ruled that it did not vitiate the original findings. Thus, the RTC affirmed its conviction.

Court of Appeals Decision

The CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction but erred in ruling that reopening the case was improper since the reopening occurred after judgment promulgation but before finality. The CA emphasized:

  • All elements of Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) were established, particularly the receipt of property in trust, failure to return or remit proceeds, resulting prejudice, and demand for restitution.
  • The recantation testimony was unreliable and did not negate FariAas’s earlier credible testimonies.
  • The reopening of proceedings was treated as improper, likening it to a new trial, but this conclusion was inconsistent with procedural rules allowing reopening before finality to avoid miscarriage of justice.

The CA denied Rivac’s motion for reconsideration, prompting the petition to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Ruling on Reopening of Proceedings

Under Section 24, Rule 119 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, reopening of a criminal case before the finality of a judgment of conviction is permitted to prevent miscarriage of justice. The requirements for reopening include:

  1. Motion filed before finality of judgment;
  2. Issuance of order after hearing;
  3. Presentation of additional evidence must be completed within 30 days.

The Supreme Court clarified that reopening the case after promulgation but before finality is lawful and aimed at preventing injustice. It therefore held that the RTC acted properly in reopening the proceedings, rejecting the CA’s contrary ruling.

Supreme Court Ruling on the Merits of Estafa

The Court reaffirmed the elements of Estafa under Article 315(1)(b): receipt of property in trust or on commission, misappropriation or conversion to the prejudice of another, and demand for return of the property or proceeds. Legal presumption of misappropriation arises when the accused fails to return the property or remit proceeds and does not account for the loss.

Applying these principles:

  • Rivac received jewelry on consignment with obligation to remit proceeds or return the items;
  • She failed to comply despite demands;
  • Prejudice was established by loss of jewelry valued at P439,500.00;
  • Thus, all elements of Estafa were fulfilled.

On the Credibility of Recantation

The Court emphasized that recantations are viewed with disfavor due to high risks of unreliability and susceptibility to external influences. Testimonies solemnly given during trial should not be lightly set aside, especially if the witness had many prior opportunities to clarify or correct her statements but chose to retract only after conviction. The Court cited precedents underscoring that unless special circumstances exist to justify the recantation, it carries little probative weight.

In this case, FariAas’s recantation was inconsistent with prior conduct and testimony and was likely a last-minute attempt to exonerate Rivac. Hence, it was disbelieved, and the original conviction was upheld.

Modification of Penalty under RA 10951

In compliance with RA 10951, which adjusted fines and penalties for crimes under the Revised Penal Code and took effect before final resolut

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

    About Privacy Terms