Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Quezon City

PERLA COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS, INC.,

(also known as PERLA INSURANCE),
represented by JERICO J. PELO
Complainant,
I.S NO. XV-03-INQ-18J-10840
For: ESTAFA/QUALIFIED THEFT
-versus-

MAY ANGELOU SONIGA

Respondent.
x----------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

For resolution is a complaint filed by PERLA COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS, INC., to be

represented by Jerico J. Pelo (Complainant) against May Angelou Soniga (Respondent) for
Estafa/Qualified Theft committed by the latter in Quezon City.

FOR THE COMPLAINANTS

In the Complaint Affidavit, the complainant averred that respondent Soniga was the
former Branch Cashier of Perla Insurance-Quezon City Brranch. Ms. Soniga became the Branch
Cashier on June 19, 2017.
On March 19, 2018, Mr. John Khymyr Roman (“Mr. Roman”) of Perla Insurance
conducted an initial review and examination of the records and transactions of Ms. Soniga’s fund
accountability as Branch Cashier of Perla Insurance-Quezon City.
Thereafter, Ms. Jane Dela Vega, Accounting Manager of Perla Insurance, requested Mr.
Jerico Pelo to undertake a follow-up review of the preliminary accountability findings initially
established by the Accounting Department.
Per Audit report date July 30, 2018, they found out that the premium collections received
by the branch cashier Soniga, from February 1, 2017 to February 5, 2018, were not remitted,
with a total amount of P447,458.08. The copy of the audit report is attached as Annex “B” of the
complaint. The Audit Report additionally states that Ms. Soniga was AWOL last February 5,
2018, despite Perla Insurance’s notice and directive for her to report back to the office.
 Perla Insurance, thru the authorized representative, accuses Ms. Soniga of having
committed the criminal offense of Estafa thru Abuse of Confidence , as defined under Article
315 of the Revised Penal Code, and/or Qualified Theft, as defined under Article 310 of the
Revised Penal Code.
The complainant alleged that Ms. Soniga committed Estafa and/or Qualified Theft when
she pocketed and misappropriated the cash collections remitted to her in the aggregate amount of
P11,285.55, which she covered-up by falsifying deposit slips or daily collection reports and by
reproducing passbooks or bank books. Copies of the documentary proofs are attached as
Annexes “C” to “E-3” of the complaint.
Secondly, the complainant reiterated that Ms. Soniga committed Estafa and/or Qualified
Theft when she partially or wholly pocketed and misappropriated the cash collections remitted to
her in the aggregate amount of P59,043.04, which she partly covered-up by misapplying the
check payments for other insurance policies or assureds. Copies of the documentary proofs are
attached as Annexes “F” to “N-3” of the complaint.
The complainant further contented alleged that Ms. Soniga committed Estafa and/or
Qualified Theft when she pocketed and misappropriated the cash collections remitted to her in
the aggregate amount of P357,160.62 and P9,955.00 , which she covered-up by re-using and re-
attaching the deposit slips pertaining to other insurance policies or assureds. Copies of the
documentary proofs are attached as Annexes “O” to “UU-11” and Annexes “ZZ” to “ZZ-3”,
respectively.
Lastly, the complainant asserted that Ms. Soniga committed Estafa and/or Qualified Theft
when she pocketed and misappropriated the cash collections remitted to her in the aggregate
amount of P10,013.87, which she covered-up by attaching a fake deposit slip coupled with the
misapplication of collections pertaining to another insurance policy or assured. Copies of the
documentary proofs are attached as Annexes “YY” to “YY-3”.
Perla Insurance reiterated that prior to the filing of the complaint, a Demand to Pay was
made, which was served to Ms. Soniga, demanding for the payment of the aggregate amount of
P447,458.08. The copy of the demand letter is attached as Annex “AAA” of the complaint.
However, despite the demand to pay, the respondent failed and refused to pay, restitute or
reimburse Perla Insurance to its damage and prejudice and that of the affected agents and
assureds.
ISSUE

Whether there is a probable cause to charge the Private Respondent for the crime of
Estafa thru Abuse of Confidence, as defined under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, and/or
Qualified Theft, as defined under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code.

DISCUSSION
 After careful evaluation of the evidence presented and submitted, undersigned finds
probable cause to charge the Respondent for violation of Estafa thru Abuse of Confidence, as
defined under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Qualified Theft is absorbed for the
violation of Estafa.

The complainant claimed that the respondents are guilty of the crime of estafa
particularly in paragraph 1 (b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code defines the crime Estafa:
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any means
mentioned herein below shall be punished by:

1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum
period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if
such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in
its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty
which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the
accessory penalties which may be imposed under the provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be
termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.

Fraud may be committed by any of the following means:

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

To establish probable cause of the first form of estafa known as “Estafa with Abuse of
Confidence”, under Paragraph 1(b) Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, the following
elements must be present: (1) that money, goods, or other personal properties are 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; (2) that there is a misappropriation
or conversion of such money or property by the offender or a denial of the receipt thereof; (3)
that the misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) that there
is a demand made by the offended party on the offender.
The first element is present in this case. Grave abuse of confidence, must be the result of
the relation by reason of dependence, guardianship, or vigilance, between the private respondent
and the offended party that might create a high degree of confidence between them which the
private respondent abused. The respondent’s position was one reposed with trust and confidence,
considering that it involves handling, receiving, and disbursing money from the proceeds given
by the assureds. Soniga’s responsibilities as branch cashier required prudence and vigilance over
the money entrusted into her care. The respondent cannot gain access with the cash collections
without the help of her position in the company.

The second element is also present in this case. There is a misappropriation or conversion
of such money or property by the offender or a denial of the receipt thereof. Under the case of
Coson v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 218830, September 14, 2017, the Supreme Court
reiterated that the essence of this kind of Estafa is the appropriation or conversion of money or
property received to the prejudice of the entity to whom a return should be made. The words
'convert' and 'misappropriate' connote the act of using or disposing of another's property as if it
were one's own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To
misappropriate for one's own use includes not only conversion to one's personal advantage, but
also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without right. In proving the element of
conversion or misappropriation, a legal presumption of misappropriation arises when the accused
fails to deliver the proceeds of the sale or to return the items to be sold and fails to give an
account of their whereabouts.

To stress, misappropriation or conversion refers to any disposition of another's property

as if it were her own or devoting it to a purpose not agreed upon. It connotes disposition of one's
property without any right. Instead of executing her duties, she pocketed and misappropriated the
cash collections remitted to her in the aggregate amount of P447,458.08 which she covered-up
by: a.) attaching a fake deposit slip coupled with the misapplication of collections pertaining to
another insurance policy or assured, b.) re-using and re-attaching the deposit slips pertaining to
other insurance policies or assureds, and c.) falsifying deposit slips or daily collection reports and
by reproducing passbooks or bank books. Failure of the private respondent to refute or
specifically deny the allegations stated by the complainant in her Complaint-Affidavit, may
result to the admission of the allegations.

Clearly, the misappropriation or conversion is to the prejudice of the insurance company

and assureds, as the proceeds given by the assureds will be affected. The third element is also
present in this case.

The fourth element is also present in this case. There is a demand made by the offended
party on the offender. The complainant claimed that prior to the filing of the complaint, a
Demand to Pay was made, which was served to Ms. Soniga, demanding for the payment of the
aggregate amount of P447,458.08. As a proof of its allegation, the copy of the demand letter is
attached as Annex “AAA” of the complaint. However, despite the demand to pay, the respondent
failed and refused to pay, restitute or reimburse Perla Insurance to its damage and prejudice and
that of the affected agents and assureds.

Considering the foregoing, the evidence on record clearly establish that there is probable
cause to file a case of Estafa against the private respondent. Through grave abuse of confidence
reposed upon him as Branch Cashier of Perla Insurance, using his official position and the
knowledge he acquired in connection with and in furtherance to his duties and responsibilities,
pocketed and misappropriated the cash collections remitted to her in the aggregate amount of
P447,458.08.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, undersigned respectfully recommends for the filing

of the charge for violation of paragraph 1 (b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

July 20, 2019, Quezon City, Philippines.

RODERICK P. ROBLEDO
Assistant City Prosecutor

Copy Furnished:

PERLA COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS, INC.

JERICO J. PELO

MAY ANGELOU SONIGA