JORGE SALAZAR, 

petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent.
For failure of Aurora/Uni-Group to deliver the ladies jeans or to account for the US$41,300.00
despite demand, Skiva, through its local agent represented by Ms. Tujan, filed a criminal complaint for
estafa against Mr. Lettmayr and petitioner. After preliminary investigation, the Public Prosecutor
dismissed the complaint against Mr. Lettmayr and information was filed against petitioner.[21]
After trial, the lower court convicted herein petitioner of estafa under Article 315 paragraph 1 (b)
of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of
eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as the minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8)
months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as the maximum and to pay Uni-Group and Aurora the
amount of P595,259.00. [22] On March 13, 1997, the lower court denied petitioners Motion for
Reconsideration. [23] On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in totothe decision of the trial court and
denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.[24]

HELD:
The following are the elements of estafa under Article 315 paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal
Code: a) that money, goods or other personal property is 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; b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by
the offender; or denial on his part of such receipt; c) that such misappropriation or conversion or
denial is to the prejudice of another; and d) there is demand made by the offended party to the
offender.[25]
Thus, upon withdrawal by petitioner of the amounts advanced by Skiva, petitioner received the
same in trust with an obligation to return the funds or account for the proceeds thereof.
 The act committed by petitioner of remitting the funds abroad constitutes an act of conversion or
misappropriation. This Court has previously held that even a temporary disturbance of property rights
constitutes misappropriation.[40] The words convert and misappropriate as used in Article 315
paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code, connote an act of using or disposing of anothers property
as if it were ones own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon.

ANTONIO NEPOMUCENO Vs. People

 That on or about the 22nd day of October, 1994 at Lipa City, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being [then] employed as manager of
Lipa Lending Investor, Inc. and as such has the duty to manage and administer the funds of the said
corporation, with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon him by the officers of the aforesaid
corporation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously misapply, misappropriate and
convert to his own personal use and benefit the amount of One Hundred Eighty Thousand
(P180,000.00) Pesos belonging to Lipa Lending Investor, Inc. by making it appear that the said
amount was part of the change or overpayment due to a certain Rommel Villanueva, a borrower of
Lipa Lending Investor, Inc., when in truth and in fact as he very well knew he was not authorized to
receive the same and despite demands to return the said amount accused failed and refused to do
so, to the damage and prejudice of Lipa Lending Investor, Inc. in the aforesaid amount
of P180,000.00, Philippine currency.
HELD:
The elements of estafa under Article 315 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code are as follows:  (1) that
money, goods, or other personal properties are 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; (2) that there is a 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.[
 As for the element of demand, the law does not require demand as a condition precedent to the
crime of embezzlement.[26]  The consummation of the crime of estafa does not depend on the fact
that a request for a return of the money is first made and refused in order that the author of the crime
should comply with the obligation to return the sum misapplied.[27]

ELSA MACANDOG MAGTIRA, Vs, People

Petitioner Elsa Macandog Magtira seeks in this petition for review on certiorari (filed under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court) to reverse the decision[1] and the resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 27252. The CA affirmed with modification the joint decision[3] of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 148, that found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of seven (7) counts of estafa penalized under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
The petitioner entered a plea of not guilty to all the charges.[6] Thereafter, the seven cases were tried
jointly. The following facts were established: first, the petitioner was the custodian of the funds of
the Paluwagan where the private complainants were members;[7] second, that demands were made
against the petitioner by the private complainants for the return of their contributions in
the Paluwagan; and third, the petitioner failed to meet the private complainants demand for the return
of their contributions.
During trial, the petitioner denied misappropriating the contributions of the private complainants.
She claimed that she was robbed of the Paluwagan funds in the early afternoon of February 28, 2000.
By way of corroboration, the petitioner presented a copy of an entry in the police blotter dated
February 28, 2000 and the affidavits of five individuals attesting to the robbery.[8]

HELD:
Misappropriation as an element of the offense of  estafa connotes an act of using, or disposing of,
anothers property as if it were ones own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that
agreed upon.[16] We have previously held that the failure to account upon demand for funds or
property held in trust without offering any satisfactory explanation for the inability to account is
circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.[17] We have also held that the demand for the return of
the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the accused to account are similarly circumstantial
evidence that the courts can appreciate.[18]
We find that all the above elements are present in the present case, having been established by
the prosecutions evidence and by the petitioners own admissions. The first element was established
by the evidence showing that the petitioner received various sums of money from the private
complainants to be held in trust for them under the Paluwagan operation. The petitioner admitted that
she was under obligation, at a fixed date, to account for and to deliver the Paluwagan funds to the
private complainants in the sequential order agreed upon among them. The second element was
established by the evidence that the petitioner failed to account for and to deliver
the Paluwagan funds to the private complainants on the agreed time of delivery. The third and fourth
elements of the offense were proven by evidence showing that the petitioner failed to account for and
to deliver the Paluwagan funds to the private complainants despite several demands made upon her
by the private complainants. Each of the private complainants testified as to how they were prejudiced
when they failed to receive their allotted Paluwagan funds.
BURGUNDY REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, 
vs.
JOSEFA "JING" C. REYES and SECRETARY RAUL GONZALEZ of the DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE,
FACTS:
Private respondent Josefa "Jing" C. Reyes (Reyes), sometime in 1996, offered her services to
petitioner as the latter's real estate agent in buying parcels of land in Calamba, Laguna, which
are to be developed into a golf course. She informed petitioner that more or less ten (10) lot
owners are her clients who were willing to sell their properties. Convinced of her representations,
petitioner released the amount of ₱23,423,327.50 in her favor to be used in buying those parcels
of land. Reyes, instead of buying those parcels of land, converted and misappropriated the
money given by petitioner to her personal use and benefit. Petitioner sent a formal demand for
Reyes to return the amount of ₱23,423,327.50, to no avail despite her receipt of the said
demand. As such, petitioner filed a complaint for the crime of Estafa against Reyes before the
Assistant City Prosecutor's Office of Makati City.
HELD:

The essence of estafa under Article 315, par. 1 (b) is the appropriation or conversion of money or
property received to the prejudice of the owner. The words "convert" and "misappropriate"
connote an act of using or disposing of another's property as if it were one's own, or of devoting it
to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To misappropriate for one's own use
includes not only conversion to one's personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of
the property of another without right. 12

In reversing the finding of probable cause that the crime of estafa has been committed, the
Secretary of Justice reasoned out that, [the] theory of conversion or misappropriation is difficult to
sustain and that under the crime of estafa with grave abuse of confidence, the presumption is
that the thing has been devoted to a purpose or is different from that for which it was intended
but did not take place in this case.  The CA, in sustaining the questioned resolutions of the
1âwphi1

Secretary of Justice, ruled that the element of misappropriation or conversion is wanting. It

further ratiocinated that the demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust and the failure of
the accused to account for it, are circumstantial evidence of misappropriation, however, the said
presumption is rebuttable and if the accused is able to satisfactorily explain his failure to produce
the thing delivered in trust, he may not be held liable for estafa. 1âwphi1

 
In proving the element of conversion or misappropriation, a legal presumption of
misappropriation arises when the accused fails to deliver the proceeds of the sale or to return the
items to be sold and fails to give an account of their whereabouts.

Quinto Vs People
FACTS:
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the
decision of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on 27 September 1996, in People of the
Philippines vs. Leonida Quinto y Calayan, docketed CA-G.R. CR No. 16567, which has affirmed
the decision of Branch 157 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), National Capital Judicial Region,
Branch 157, Pasig City, finding Leonida Quinto y Calayan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Estafa.
Leonida Quinto y Calayan, herein petitioner, was indicted for the crime of estafa under
Article 315, paragraph 1(b), of the Revised Penal Code, in an information which read:

"That on or about the 23rd day of March 1977, in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
received in trust from one Aurelia Cariaga the following pieces of jewelry, to wit:

One (1) set of marques with briliantitos

valued at .............................................P17,500.00
One (1) solo ring (2 karats & 30 points)
valued at .............................................P16,000.00
One (1) diamond ring (rosetas)
valued at .............................................P 2,500.00

with a total value of P36,000.00 for the purpose of selling the same on commission basis and
with the express obligation on the part of the accused to turn over the proceeds of sale thereof,
or to return the said jewelries (sic), if not sold, five (5) days after receipt thereof, but the accused
once in possession of the jewelries (sic), far from complying with her obligation, with intent of
gain, gave abuse of confidence and to defraud said Aurelia Cariaga, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate, misapply and convert to her own personal use and
benefit the said jewelries (sic) and/or the proceeds of sale or to return the pieces of jewelry, to
the damage and prejudice of the said Aurelia Cariaga in the aforementioned amount of P
36,000.00.

HELD:
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code defines estafa and penalizes any person who shall
defraud another 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." It is axiomatic that the gravamen of the
offense is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the
owner. The terms "convert" and "misappropriate" have been held to connote "an act of using or
disposing of another's property as if it were one's own or devoting it to a purpose or use different
from that agreed upon." The phrase, 'to misappropriate to one's own use" has been said to
include "not only conversion to one's personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of
the property of another without right."[20] Verily, the sale of the pieces of jewelry on installments
in contravention of the explicit terms of the authority granted to her in Exhibit "A" (supra) is
deemed to be one of conversion. Thus, neither the theory of "delay in the fulfillment of
commission" nor that of novation posed by petitioner, can avoid the incipient criminal
liability. In People vs. Nery,[21] this Court held:

"It may be observed in this regard that novation is not one of the means recognized by the Penal
Code whereby criminal liability can be extinguished; hence, the role of novation may only be
either to prevent the rise of criminal liability or to cast doubt on the true nature of the original
basic transaction, whether or not it was such that its breach would not give rise to penal
responsibility ..."

The criminal liability for estafa already committed is then not affected by the subsequent novation
of contract, for it is a public offense which must be prosecuted and punished by the State in its
own conation.[22]