Robles v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Damian Robles was charged with estafa for defrauding Paramount Business Machines, represented by Roberto Ng. Robles received office equipment worth P14,895.00 under an agreement to sell them and remit the proceeds or return the unsold items. He failed to do either, despite demands. Procedural History: The trial court convicted Robles of estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and the amount of indemnity. Robles appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner Robles argued that the delivery trust receipts were merely evidence of receipt and not reflective of the true intention of the parties, which he claimed was a sale on trial basis. He contended that his failure to return the items within two days meant he had purchased them, making his liability civil, not criminal.
Issue(s)
Whether the delivery trust receipts evidenced a sale on trial basis or a fiduciary obligation to sell or return the goods. Whether the petitioner's failure to remit proceeds or return the goods constituted estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code, considering Presidential Decree No. 115.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review for lack of merit and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petitioner was guilty of estafa.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the delivery trust receipts and the petitioner's obligation: The Court found that the delivery trust receipts clearly stated that the merchandise was received "in trust for and as the property of said Paramount Business Machines" with the obligation to return the same within 2 days unless definitely purchased and paid for. The Court emphasized that the printed conditions formed part of the agreement. The surrounding circumstances, including multiple transactions involving several items and the petitioner's admission of being a sales agent, further indicated that the transactions were not ordinary sales on trial basis but fiduciary in nature. The petitioner's failure to return the machines upon demand and to account for the sale proceeds established his breach of trust. On the commission of estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code and Presidential Decree No. 115: The Court reiterated that Presidential Decree No. 115, the Trust Receipts Law, explicitly states in Section 13 that the failure of an entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of goods covered by a trust receipt or to return said goods if unsold constitutes estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code. Since the acts complained of occurred after the effectivity of PD 115, the petitioner's failure to comply with his obligations under the trust receipts fell squarely within the purview of this provision. Furthermore, the Court noted that even in the absence of PD 115, the elements of estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) were present: (1) unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence; (2) misappropriating money or goods received in trust or on commission or under an obligation to deliver or return the same; and (3) to the prejudice of another. The failure to account for funds or property held in trust, upon demand, is evidence of misappropriation.
Main Doctrine
The failure of an entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of goods covered by a trust receipt or to return said goods if unsold constitutes estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code, as provided for by Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 115.