No change

Under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the misappropriation, conversion or denial of money, goods or other personal property received in trust, or on commission or for administration or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver or return the same, constitutes the crime of Estafa. If there is a change or substitution of the transaction which is called novation of the contract, there is no estafa committed (Article 1292 Civil Code). This is explained in this case of Clara.

Clara personally knew Brenda and had been long time acquaintances. They are both engaged in buying and selling jewelries and had done business together countless of times. One time, Clara told Brenda that she knew someone who was interested in a male’s diamond ring and was willing to buy one at a price ranging from P50,000 to P80,000. When Brenda told Clara that she has an available item within the given specification, Clara asked Brenda to bring the ring to her client. At first Brenda was hesitant to entrust the ring to Clara considering its price, but the latter was able to convince Brenda on the promise that she will return the ring if the buyer would not buy the same, or immediately deliver the payment if the buyer decides to purchase the ring. So Clara signed a Trust Receipt acknowledging receipt of said ring from Brenda and assuming responsibility for its loss by theft or otherwise, or turn over its proceeds if sold and answer for all the expenses for the safekeeping. Clara also promised to return the ring if not sold within two days.

After the lapse of two days, however, Clara failed to deliver the payment of the ring or return the same to Brenda. It was only after two weeks and after Brenda had tried to look for Clara in her place of business when Brenda was able to finally meet with Clara. During said meeting, Clara told Brenda that the ring will be paid within 30 days. However, despite the lapse of 30 days, Clara still failed to make any payment. Thereafter Clara pleaded to pay the price in installments to which Brenda agreed, but still no payment was made. Thus a demand letter was sent to Clara by Brenda through her lawyer, to whom Clara promised to settle the amount in installment. And when Clara still failed to pay, a complaint for Estafa was filed against her by Brenda.

For her defense, Clara averred that she was not the one, but their friends Virgie and Lita, who told Brenda that they had buyers for the ring and she was only the one who signed the Trust Receipt because Vangie and Lita had unsettled accounts with Brenda and the latter did not want to give the ring to them. Furthermore, she claimed that she paid P20,000 from her own pocket before the filing of the complaint when Lita and Virgie did not pay within two days.

The Trial Court, however, still convicted Clara, finding that a man’s diamond ring valued at P75,000  was delivered to and received by her with the obligation to sell the same and deliver the proceeds thereof to Brenda or, if not sold, to return said ring to the latter within two days. So the RTC ruled that all the elements of Estafa had been established. This ruling was sustained by the Court of Appeals (CA).

Thus Clara questioned the decision of the CA and the RTC before the Supreme Court, contending that there was no demand made prior to her payment of P20,000 and that this partial payment was for the principal of P75,000. Thus, the trust relationship between them was novated into a creditor-debtor relationship.

The Supreme Court (SC), however, still affirmed the decisions of the RTC and the CA convicting Clara of Estafa. The SC said that even assuming that the P20,000 payment is for the value of the diamond ring, failure to account upon demand for the funds or property held in trust is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation or Estafa.There is also no novation even if the P20,000 was paid before demand. Novation is the extinguishment of an obligation by the substitution or change of said obligation with a subsequent one which terminates the first, either by changing the object or principal conditions or by substituting the debtor, or by subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor. It is imperative that said substitution be so declared in unequivocal terms, or that the old and the new obligation be incompatible with each other on every point. Novation is never presumed. The party alleging it must show clearly and unequivocally that novation had indeed taken place. In this case, Clara failed to do so (Arrivas vs. Bacotoc, G.R.228704, Dec. 2, 2020).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]