Title: Luces v.

Damole
Date: 14 March 2008
Ponente: J. Nachura
Subject/Topic: Criminal Law, Estafa

Facts:

• Petitioner Luces and respondent Damole agreed that Luces would sell the P.O. cards issued by
the latter to the former's customers. Luces would get her commission therefrom in the form of
marked up prices. Petitioner further agreed that she would hold the P.O. cards as trustee of the
private complainant with the obligation to remit the proceeds of the sale thereof less the
commission, and before such remittance, to hold the same in trust for the latter. Lastly, petitioner
undertook to return the unsold PO cards.
• Initially, petitioner complied with her obligations, but later she defaulted in remitting the
proceeds. Some P.O. cards were even used by petitioner herself and her relatives, but they did
not pay the corresponding price, nor remitted the proceeds.
• Damole filed a civil case for collection of money and a criminal case for estafa.
o Petitioner - found guilty of violation of Article 315(1) (b) (through misappropriation or conversion).
o CA affirmed the RTC decision but with modification on the penalty.
• Damole filed a petition before the SC, arguing that the CA erred in convicting her and that she is
only liable civilly and not criminally.

Issue: WON Luces is criminally liable for estafa?

Held/Ratio: YES.

The elements of estafa through misappropriation or conversion (Article 315(1) (b)) were present.

1. That the money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on
commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver or
return the same.
o It was established that petitioner received from the private complainant the subject PO cards to be
sold by the former on commission, as evidenced by their Trust Receipt Agreements

2. That there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial
on his part of such receipt.
o Using or disposing of P.O. cards by Luces for her and her relatives’ own personal purpose and
benefit, constitutes breach of trust, unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence.
o The failure of LUCES to account for them establishes the felony of estafa through abuse of
confidence by misappropriation or conversion.

3. That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another

o Damole was deprived of her right to enjoy the proceeds of the sale as a result of petitioner’s
unauthorized use of the PO cards.

4. That there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender.

o In spite of repeated demands made upon Luces by Damole, she has failed and refused to comply
with her obligation.

The civil case filed by the Damole is not a prejudicial question. The issues were
different.

• Civil case - Damole’s right to recover from Luces the amount representing the value of the P.O. cards
allegedly embezzled by the latter.
• Criminal case - WON Luces’ failure to account for the proceeds of the sale of P.O. cards and/or to return the
unsold P.O. cards as Damole’s trustee constitutes estafa under Art. 315 par. 1 (b) of the RPC.