Case Summary (G.R. No. 116602-03)
Charges Filed
On September 10, 1987, Sarao was charged with a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 due to a dishonored check issued on June 15, 1986, to Kim del Pilar, who had entrusted her with items to sell on a commission basis. Additionally, on October 27, 1987, Sarao faced charges of estafa, alleging misappropriation of jewelry entrusted to her by Kim del Pilar.
Transaction and Evidence
In early April 1986, Sarao and Kim del Pilar met at a jewelry shop and agreed to sell jewelry on a commission basis. On May 12, 1986, Kim del Pilar entrusted Sarao with eight pieces of jewelry valued at P301,500, with the agreement for return or sale proceeds by May 19, 1986. The jewelry was sold, but the checks received as payment were dishonored. Subsequently, Sarao issued an undated check of P214,000 to cover part of her obligation, which was also later dishonored.
Trial Court Ruling on Estafa
On January 22, 1990, the trial court dismissed the estafa case, determining that there was insufficient evidence to prove misappropriation. The court noted that while Sarao did receive the jewelry, there was no conclusive proof that she intended to misappropriate or convert the jewels for personal use. Moreover, the trial court recognized that Sarao was a victim of insufficient funds affecting the buyer’s ability to pay.
Civil Liability Established
Despite the dismissal of criminal charges, the trial court found Sarao civilly liable for the amount paid by Kim del Pilar to the jewelry owner, Azucena Enriquez, noting that the obligation to pay was direct and not contingent on the sale's proceeds. The decision was made on the basis that Kim del Pilar had indeed paid Enriquez with borrowed funds, establishing a clear obligation on Sarao's part.
Motion for Reconsideration Denied
Subsequent motions filed by Sarao for reconsideration were denied, leading to her appeal to the Court of Appeals. The trial court's assertion that Sarao’s obligation was not dependent on whether she successfully collected the sale proceeds from Vallarta stood firm.
Appellate Court Decision
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling on February 24, 1994, and also denied a motion for reconsideration on April 26, 1994. It supported the view that once Sarao acknowledged, by instructing Enriquez to date the check, that she had no funds at the time of encashment, she effectively recognized that her obligation was due and demandable.
Core Issue of Appeal
Sarao’s main argument revolved around an alleged agreement that the check would no
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 116602-03)
Case Background
- On September 10, 1987, petitioner Carmelita Sarao was charged with violating B.P. Blg. 22 due to issuing a check dishonored for insufficient funds on June 15, 1986.
- Additionally, on October 27, 1987, she faced charges of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code for misappropriating jewelry entrusted to her by private respondent Kim del Pilar on May 12, 1986.
Transactions Between Sarao and Del Pilar
- Sarao and del Pilar met in early April 1986 at a jewelry shop and agreed to sell jewelry on a commission basis.
- On May 12, 1986, del Pilar entrusted Sarao with eight pieces of jewelry valued at P301,500, agreeing that if unsold, they would be returned by May 19, 1986.
- Sarao provided del Pilar with Title Certificate No. 90915 as collateral during this transaction.
Dishonor of Checks
- The jewelry was sold to a third party, Victoria Vallarta, who issued two checks totaling P214,000. However, these checks were dishonored due to insufficient funds.
- Subsequently, Sarao issued Philbanking Check No. 148526 to del Pilar as partial payment, which was also undated at the