(1) that the accused defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence, or (b) by means of deceit; and (2) that

damage
or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. Invariably, unlawful
abuse of confidence or deceit is the essence of estafa.

(2) 1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely: x x x x

(3) (b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods or any other personal property
received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving
the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed
by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property[.]
(4) The elements of estafa through misappropriation under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) are: (a) the offender's receipt
of money, goods, or other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other
obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same; (b) misappropriation or conversion by the offender
of the money or property received, or denial of receipt of the money or property; (c) the misappropriation,
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (d) demand by the offended party that the offender return
the money or property received.[27]
(5) To secure conviction, it behooves upon the State to prove the existence of all the essential elements of the
offense charged beyond reasonable doubt. Anything less than all the elements of the offense charged negates a
finding of guilt.

The elements of estafa through misappropriation under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) are: (a) the offender's receipt of
money, goods, or other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other
obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same; (b) misappropriation or conversion by the offender of
the money or property received, or denial of receipt of the money or property; (c) the misappropriation, conversion or
denial is to the prejudice of another; and (d) demand by the offended party that the offender return the money or
property received.[

 but said accused once in possession of the said amount, far from
complying with his aforesaid obligation, failed and refused and still
fails and refuses 
ESTAFA" DISTINGUISHED FROM THEFT. In general, the crime of estafa is distinguished from that
of theft by the manner in which the offender in each case acquires possession of the property.
The estafador receives the possession of the property, while the thief takes, without the owner's
consent, the possession of the latter's property.

There are, however, instances where even if the property misappropriated was received by the
offender, the misappropriation will constitute theft, and not estafa. In such cases, distinction should
be made whether the offender, on receiving the property, acquired: (1) the material possession
alone or (2) the material and juridical possession, or (3) the material and juridical possession plus
the ownership, of the property. Where only the material possession is transferred, conversion of the
property gives rise to the crime of theft; where both material and juridical possessions are
transferred, misappropriation of the property would constitute estafa; and where in addition to the
material possession, the ownership of the property is transferred, misappropriation would only give
rise to a civil obligation (People vs. Aquino, 36 Off. Gaz., 1886). For example, an agent of the public
authorities who, in the performance of his duties, and because of the lack of registration papers,
takes possession of cattle in the presence of the cattleman charged with the care thereof, without
any opposition or protest on the part of said cattleman or on the part of the possessor or owner of
the cattle seized and appropriating the value thereof to his own use, without reporting the case to his
superior officers or to the competent authorities, constitute the crime of estafa (U. S. vs. Dacanay,
Phil. 617.)" (Book Two, Part II, Francisco's Penal Code, P. 1098.)

To distinguish theft from estafa, it is important to know whether the possession of the
property by the
offender is only material or if it is coupled with juridical possession. For example, in the case
of Ana and
Maria, if Maria agrees to lend Ana her mobile phone for a week, then Ana has a right over
the mobile
phone for that week. Maria cannot take the mobile phone from Ana during the week that
they have
agreed upon. Because of their agreement, Ana acquired juridical possession over the
property.
But, if Ana sells the phone during the week that it was within her possession, then it is
obvious that she
has converted the use of the property. She was permitted to use it, but she was not
authorized to sell it.
If this happens, estafa is committed.

https://tribune.net.ph/index.php/2020/01/13/theft-or-estafa/

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/feb2017/gr_199907_2017.html