Notes - Estafa 315 1b

G.R. No.
96428 September 2, 1999
WILMA T. BARRAMEDA, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS and LOLITA WATANABE, respondents.
Accused-petitioner was charged with the crime of estafa through misappropriation or conversion as
defined in and penalized under paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code 8. The elements of the said
crime are: (1) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on
commission of for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or
to return, the same; (2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the
offender or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that such 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 9.
On this point, we find no error in the conclusion of the trial court that accused-petitioner indeed received
the amount of US$1,400.00 and 400,000 yen from the private complainant for delivery to the latter's
mother, Papiniana Paguinto. In arriving at this conclusion, the trial court took into account the testimony of
private complainant herself who positively declared that the amount was actually given to and received by
accused-petitioner.
In sum, the prosecution has conclusively shown that accused-petitioner received money equivalent to
P50,000.00 from private complainant Lolita Paguinto Watanabe, in trust and under the obligation to
deliver the same to her mother, Papiniana Paguinto. The accused denied having received the said
amount, which denial has been proven to be false. The denial made by accused-petitioner was to the
prejudice of the private-complainant and her mother. Finally, demand was made for the return of the
money from accused-petitioner which she failed to do.
Under these circumstances, accused-petitioner is clearly guilty of the crime of estafa through
misappropriation or conversion as penalized under Article 315, paragraph 1(B) of the Revised Penal
Code which states as follows:
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by

any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
x x x x x x x x x
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
x x x x x x x x x
(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;
x x x x x x x x x
The
G.R. No. L-12656 November 8, 1917
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
DEOGRACIAS PANES, defendant-appellant.
The appellant in his own behalf.

Acting Attorney-General Paredes for appellee.
It is to be emphasized that in accordance with the receipt for the jewelry, the authenticity of which is
not questioned, the accused received the jewelry to sell on commission or to return on demand to
Hodges. Further, we should emphasize that notwithstanding the plain meaning of this document,
Panes repeatedly failed to return the jewelry on demand, and apparently construing the document
for his own purposes, after the passage of a long interval of time, sold the jewelry to another on
credit. It would seem that, soon after the first demand for the return of the jewelry was made and no
attention was paid to the same, the accused must be held to have converted the property to his own
use, and consequently was liable before the law. To appropriate to one's own use includes not only
conversion to one's personal advantage but every attempt to dispose of the property of another
without right. (See 9 R. C. L., pp. 1275, 1276.) The fact that, on threat of criminal prosecution, Panes
actually did make restitution to Hodges and the latter proclaimed himself satisfied, only affects the
penal aspect of the case as to the right of the offended party to indemnification.

Notes - Estafa 315 1b

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notes - Estafa 315 1b

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notes - Estafa 315 1b

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

96428 September 2, 1999

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by

1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:

(b) By misappropriating or converting, to

G.R. No. L-12656 November 8, 1917

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

The appellant in his own behalf.

You might also like