Case# 7

US v Sevilla : THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. ANGEL R.

SEVILLA, defendant and appellant.
Doctrine 1. Breach of trust takes place fraudulent intent when an estafa takes the form of
an actual appropriation and conversion of funds received by the offender in
trust or commission
Facts: 1. The appellant was the treasurer of Manila Railroad Company
2. The appellant took through his subordinate ( a cashier ) sum of money out of
the funds of the Railroad company
- Giving in return his personal check for the same amount draw on Philippine
National Bank
- It happened again twice in the same manner.
3. He told the cashier to hold his personal checks until the end of the month and
not deposit them on the bank account of Railroad.
4. He admitted the used of money for his personal or private purposes
Petitioner:

Respondent:

RTC: 1. Guilty of estafa under par 5 of article 535 of the Penal Code ( Article 315, par 1
(b) na ata siya )

CA: 2. Affirmed the CA

Issue: Whether Sevilla is guilty of Estafa

Held: Yes, sevilla is guilty of estafa even she has no permanent intent to misappropriate the
funds.

Discussion: 1. Fraudulent intent in committing the conversion or diversion is not necessary

element of the form of estafa here

a. What is important is the breach of confidence in the conversion or diversion of

trust funds
 2. All elements are present under this kind of Estafa:
a. The money for which the appellant’s checks were substituted was received by
him for safe-keeping or administration. As financial officer of the corporation.
b. That he took the money for his personal use from the funds entrusted to him
for safekeeping and substituting his personal checks that were retained by
cashier for a certain period.
- The appellant misappropriated and diverted that funds for that period.
- The checks did not constitute cash because they were retained by appellant
hence, no value to the corporation.
- Different from where money was exchanged for checks drawn and available
for immediate presentation to the bank for payment

Even the appellant insist that it is not her intention to keep the funds
permanently, such intention is not necessary element in this case of estafa
- It rarely exists in cases of this nature

c. She caused injury to Railroad company, although for only temporary it is still
sufficient to constitute injury
Notes: "ART. 535. The penalties prescribed by the next preceding article shall be imposed
upon: * * * * * * *

"5. Any person who, to the prejudice (perjuicio) of another, shall convert or
misappropriate any money, goods, or other personal property received by such person
for safekeeping, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other
circumstances giving rise to the obligation to make delivery of or to return the same,
or shall deny having received such money, goods, or other property."