The Supreme Court had upheld the conviction for estafa of a Cebuana who misappropriated the purchase order (P.O.) cards entrusted to her by her business partner for sale to customers.
The SC’s Third Division, chaired by Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, rejected the petition for review on certiorari filed by Cynthia Luces on her move to stop Regional Trial Court-branch 19 Judge Ramon Codilla Jr. from implementing the conviction.
The SC ruling, penned by Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura, affirmed the decision of the RTC but reduced the sentence from a 20-year maximum jail term to only 7 years, 8 months, and 21 days.
Luces argued that she could not be held criminally liable for estafa because she was already sued by complainant Cherry Damole in a civil case for collection of sum of money and that she had been paying the latter on installment basis.
The SC however rejected her defense, saying that she violated Article 315 (1)-(b) of the Revised Penal Code by misappropriating or converting the PO cards for her personal use and for her relatives.
Records of the case showed that, in 1993, Luces approached Damole at the latter’s place of work at Robinson’s Department Store in Fuente Osmena and convinced the latter to grant her POs to be sold by her on commission basis.
The agreement was for Luces to sell the PO cards to her customers, getting her share of commission in the form of add-on cost to the price, then remitting the sales to Damole in four payments.
Luces failed to comply with the remittance prompting Damole to file a civil case for collection of payment of P412,305 dues from the POs. Damole also filed estafa charge, which was the case that convicted Luces.
Luces explained that her failure to pay Damole of her obligation promptly was due to the failure of a certain Evelyn Tamarra to pay her the dues from the POs that Tamarra got from her.
It was found out later on that, besides the POs that she entrusted to Tamarra, she also used some of the POs for her own and for some of her relatives, as evidenced by the copies of the used PO cards that had their names on them.
“There being no adequate explanation why she personally used and allowed her relatives to use the cards, there is ample circumstantial evidence of estafa. Using the PO cards as owner is conversion,” the Supreme Court ruled. — Rene U. Borromeo/RAE