Cristeta Chua-Burce Vs.

Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines

331 SCRA 1
G.R. No. 109595, April 27, 2000

Facts: 
Ramon Rocamora, manager of Metrobank, requested Fructuoso Penaflor, Assistant Cashier, to
conduct a physical bundle count of cash inside the vault, which should total to P4 million. They found
out that there was a shortage of P150,000.

The bank initiated 4 investigations and thereafter the NBI investigation, which all of this
confirms that there is a shortage of 150,000 pesos and the persons primarily responsible is the bank
custodian Cristeta Chua-Burce. Unable to explain the shortage, the services of the accused/petitioner
were terminated.

A civil and criminal case was instituted against the accused/petitioner Chua-Burce. The trial
court rendered a consolidated decision finding petitioner (a) guilty of estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of
the Revised Penal Code in the criminal case, and (b) liable for the amount of P150,000.00 in the civil
case.

She appealed both rulings to the CA but the court affirmed in toto the ruling of the trial court.
Hence, this petition.

Issues:
Whether or not the elements of estafa were proven beyond reasonable doubt?

Ruling:
No, the crime of estafa was not proven. In general, the elements of estafa are: (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.

Deceit is not an essential requisite of estafa with abuse of confidence, since the breach of
confidence takes the place of the fraud or deceit, which is a usual element in the other estafas.

The elements of estafa through conversion or misappropriation under Art. 315 (1) (b) of the Revised
Penal Code are:
(1) that personal property is received in trust, on commission, for administration or under any other
circumstance involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though the obligation is
guaranteed by a bond;
(2) that there is conversion or diversion of such property by the person who has so received it or a
denial on his part that he received it;
(3) that such conversion, diversion or denial is to the injury of another; and
(4) that there be demand for the return of the property.
The court ruled that the petitioner herein being a mere cash custodian had no juridical possession over
the missing funds. Hence, the element of juridical possession being absent, petitioner cannot be
convicted of the crime of estafa under Article 315, No. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code