The Supreme Court held that Nenita Carganillo was guilty of estafa because she misappropriated funds given to her in trust for purchasing palay. The ruling underscores that failure to return money received under an obligation, coupled with denial and demand for return, constitutes estafa. This decision reinforces the importance of fulfilling obligations in financial agreements and the legal consequences of abusing trust in business dealings.

Agent of Deceit: Did a Palay Purchase Agreement Mask Estafa?

This case revolves around a financial agreement between Teresita Lazaro, a rice trader, and Nenita Carganillo, who was supposed to act as an agent for buying palay. On September 23, 1998, Lazaro provided Carganillo with P132,000.00 to purchase palay, with the understanding that Carganillo would deliver the palay to Lazaro’s buying station by November 28, 1998. According to a written agreement, Carganillo would earn a commission of twenty centavos per kilo of palay purchased. However, the agreement stipulated that if no palay was delivered by the specified date, Carganillo was obligated to return the P132,000.00 within one week.

When Carganillo failed to deliver either the palay or the money, Lazaro made several demands, both oral and written, for the return of the funds. These demands were ignored, leading Lazaro to file an affidavit-complaint for estafa against Carganillo. An Information for estafa was subsequently filed in court. Carganillo pleaded not guilty, denying that she had entered into a principal-agent agreement with Lazaro and claiming that the money was related to a previous debt for fertilizers and rice purchased in 1995 and 1996.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Carganillo of estafa, sentencing her to imprisonment and ordering her to indemnify Lazaro for the embezzled amount. Carganillo appealed, but the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed her conviction with modifications to the penalty. The CA emphasized that the written agreement clearly outlined Carganillo’s obligations and that her failure to comply constituted estafa. Further, the CA noted that even verbal inquiries about the money’s whereabouts were tantamount to a demand, which Carganillo failed to address.

The Supreme Court (SC) affirmed the CA’s decision, finding no reversible error. The SC reiterated the elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, which requires: (a) receipt of money, goods, or other personal property in trust or on commission; (b) misappropriation or conversion of such property; (c) prejudice to another party; and (d) demand by the offended party. These elements were all present in Carganillo’s case, as she received the money in trust for a specific purpose, misappropriated it, caused prejudice to Lazaro, and failed to return the money despite demands.

The Court emphasized the importance of the written agreement (Kasunduan) as the formal expression of the parties’ rights and obligations. According to the Parol Evidence Rule, when an agreement is reduced to writing, the terms of that agreement are considered the best evidence of the parties’ intentions. While exceptions exist under Section 9, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, such as intrinsic ambiguity or failure to express the true intent of the parties, Carganillo’s claims did not meet these exceptions. The RTC found her evidence to be vague and unreliable, and the SC upheld these findings.

Regarding Carganillo’s claim of fraud, the Court found no vitiated consent. For fraud to invalidate a contract, it must be the causal inducement (dolo causante) and must be serious in character, sufficient to mislead an ordinarily prudent person. Carganillo’s awareness of the implications of signing documents, as evidenced by her refusal to sign a subsequent deed of sale, negated her claim of being tricked into signing a blank Kasunduan.

The Supreme Court addressed the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals, confirming that it was in accordance with the law and the guidelines set forth in People v. Temporada. While acknowledging the “perceived injustice” due to outdated monetary values in property crimes as stated in Lito Corpuz v. People of the Philippines, the Court deferred to the legislative branch to modify these penalties.

FAQs

What is the crime of estafa as it relates to this case?	Estafa involves misappropriating money or property received in trust, causing prejudice to another party, and failing to return it despite demand. In this case, Carganillo received money to buy palay but failed to do so and did not return the funds.
What was the significance of the “Kasunduan” in the case?	The “Kasunduan” was a written agreement outlining the terms of the financial transaction between Lazaro and Carganillo. It served as key evidence demonstrating that Carganillo received the money in trust for a specific purpose.
What are the elements of estafa that the prosecution had to prove?	The prosecution had to prove that Carganillo received money in trust, misappropriated it, caused prejudice to Lazaro, and failed to return the money despite demand. These elements are crucial for a conviction of estafa.
What is the Parol Evidence Rule, and how did it apply to this case?	The Parol Evidence Rule states that when an agreement is in writing, its terms cannot be altered by oral evidence. Carganillo’s attempt to claim the agreement was a simple loan was rejected because the written agreement clearly stated otherwise.
What is meant by “dolo causante” in relation to fraud?	“Dolo causante” refers to the causal fraud that induces a party to enter into a contract. For fraud to invalidate consent, it must be serious enough to mislead an ordinarily prudent person.
How did the Court determine the appropriate penalty for Carganillo’s crime?	The Court followed the guidelines set forth in People v. Temporada for determining the penalty for estafa. This involves considering the amount defrauded and applying the appropriate provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
What was Carganillo’s defense, and why did it fail?	Carganillo claimed the agreement was a simple loan and that she was tricked into signing a blank document. Her defense failed because the written agreement contradicted her claim, and the Court found no evidence of vitiated consent.
What is the practical implication of this ruling?	The practical implication is that individuals who receive money or property in trust for a specific purpose must fulfill their obligations. Failure to do so can result in criminal liability for estafa.

This case serves as a reminder of the legal consequences of failing to fulfill obligations in financial agreements. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of honoring agreements and the serious implications of misappropriating funds received in trust. Legal recourse is available for victims of estafa.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Nenita Carganillo v. People, G.R. No. 182424, September 22, 2014