MISSIONARIES OF THE ASSUMPTION, Inc.

Assumption Convent
J.P. Cabaguio Avenue
8000 Davao City Philippines

April 23, 2024

Mr. Eugenio B. Gudes, Jr.

Municipal Assessor
Municipality of Lupon
Lupon, Davao Oriental

Dear Mr. Gudes::

The MISSIONARIES OF THE ASSUMPTION (M.A.), INC. is a non-

stock and non- profit corporation, created under the Philippine laws . It had been
formed “to undertake works pertaining to the apostolate of the church, to Teach
and Propagate the Christian Faith and to advance in the Philippines its mission
by all proper and Legitimate ways and means including that but not limited, to the
management of convents and educational institutions to that end, to receive loans
gifts, grants and deposits of money and to do and perform any an all acts and
things reasonably and usually appurtenant thereto and related to the foregoing
purposes, and to exercise and enjoy all the powers, authorities and privileges’
granted and conceded by the laws of the Philippines now existing or that may
hereafter exist to corporation organized under and in accordance with such laws,
posses, hold title and dispose of real properties to the purpose for which said
corporation is formed”

This establishment together with its Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws

was first registered at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on
October 6, 1989 as SEC Registration No. 03185. Copy of the said Registration is
hereto attached and marked as Annex “1” thereof;

On February 6,1998, the corporation filed their Amended By-Laws. It was

approved by SofronioT. Sencio on February 22, 2024. Copy of the Certificate of
Filing of Amended By-Laws is hereto attached and marked as Annex “2”,
thereof;

On May 1, 2014, majority of Board of Trustees approved the Amended

Articles of Incorporation which was acknowledged by Javey Paul D. Francisco
on May 4, 2015. Copy of the Certificate of Filing of Amended Articles of
Incorporation is hereto attached and marked as Annex “3” thereof;

Page 1 of 19
 In line with the above stated purpose, we acquired real properties which
are used actually, directly and exclusively for the achievement of our noble
purpose. Thus, we ventured into acquiring agricultural land in the hope that this
will give us additional income to support our apostolate.

One of the properties we bought is the agricultural land at Don Mariano,

Lupon, Davao Oriental. It has an area of Thirty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred
Sixty Three (39,763) square meters of agricultural land, located at Don Mariano
Marcos, Lupon, Davao Oriental. We bought this from Arturo Q. Garcia for Two
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 200,000.00 on September 27, 2006. The Deed of
Absolute Sale, dated September 27, 2006, notarized by Atty. Alejandro A. Aquino.
Is hereto attached and marked as Annex “4 “thereof.,

On March 15, 2007, a Certificate of Non-Delinquency (Annex “5” hereto)

was issued by Benilda B. Aliazon, verified and found correct by Adelinda B.
Amacna through Exaltacion Javierto. The said certification stated that
corresponding real property taxes for Tax Declaration No. 00220 has been paid
until the year 2007.

On the same date, March 15, 2007, a Certification ( Annex “6” hereto )was
issued by Benilda B. Aliazon, verified and found correct by Adelinda B. Amacna
through Exaltacion Javierto. The said certification stated that Provincial Transfer
Tax amounting to One Thousand Pesos( Php 1,000.00) under Official Receipt No.
1093719 dated March 15, 2007 for Tax Declaration No. 00220, located at Don
Martiano Marcos Lupon, Davao Oriental formerly owned by Arturo Garcia and
transferred/donated to the Missionaries of the Assumption, Inc.

On March 15, 2007, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-42490 ( Annex “7”
hereto) was issued in the name of the Missionaries of the Assumption by Pepita
P. Landasan, the Land Registration Officer.

On January 16, 2024, the Municipal Treasurer issued the Real Property
Tax Bill (Annex “8” hereto) declaring that the Missionaries of Assumption, Inc.
has Real Property Tax Bill amounting to Thirty Six Thousand Two Hundred One
Pesos and Sixty Four Centavos (Php 36, 201.64)

As mentioned above, our establishment is a non-stock non-profit institution.

Our properties are actually, directly and exclusively used for religious and
charitable purposes, in accordance with Section 206 of the Local Government
which states that:

Every person by or whom real property is declared, who shall

claim tax exemption for such property under this Title shall file
with the provincial, city or municipal assessors within thirty (30)

Page 2 of 19
 days from the date of declaration of real property sufficient
documentary evidence in support of such claim including
corporate charters, title of ownership, articles of incorporation,
by laws, contracts, affidavits, certifications and mortgage deeds
and similar documents.

If the required evidence is not submitted within the period herein

prescribed, the property shall be listed as taxable in the
assessment roll. However, if the property shall be proven to be
tax exempt, the same shall be dropped from the Assessment
Roll.

Moreover, no less than the 1987 Constitution provides that:

Charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents,

appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all
lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and
exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational
purposes shall be exempt from taxation.

On ___________, Archbishop Romulo Valles issued a Certification that the

Missionaries of Assumption, Inc. is a non-profit, non-stock corporation engaged in
various charitable works at the Diocese of Davao City. Copy of the said
Certification is hereto attached and marked as Annex “9”.

In this connection, may we request your good office to delete TCT No. 42490 in
the name of the Missionary of Assumption, Incorporated from the list of taxable
properties.

We are looking forward that TCT No. 42490 be exempted from Real
Property Tax of the Municipality of Lupon, Davao Oriental,

Very truly yours,

Missionaries of the Assumption, Inc.

Represented by:

SR. EUFROCINA L. BANDIGAN, MA

Page 3 of 19
Copy furnished:

Honorable Erlinda D. Lim

Municipal Mayor
Municipality of Lupon
Province of Davao Oriental

Ms. Mary Jane R. Mantos, Mpa

Municipal Treasurer
Lupon, Davao Oriental

Honorable Nino Sotero L. Uy,Jr.

Provincial Governor
Province of Davao Oriental
Mati, City, Davao Oriental

Ms. Ma. Eleonor Serrano

Provincial Assessor
Province of Davao Oriental
Mati City, Davao Oriental

Engr. Maria Victoria Rodriguez

Provincial Treasurer
Province of Davao Oriental

Page 4 of 19
Introduction

Estafa, or swindling, is one of the more prevalent criminal offenses in the Philippines.
Governed by the Revised Penal Code, estafa involves deceit, fraud, or false pretenses, and
can lead to severe legal consequences. This article provides an overview of the legal
framework, elements, types, penalties, and potential defenses associated with estafa under
Philippine law.

Definition

Estafa is defined as the act of defrauding another person through deceit, false pretenses,
fraudulent acts, or breach of trust.

Types of Estafa

In the Philippines, estafa is categorized based on the methods used to commit the fraud.
The main types include:

1. Estafa with Unfaithfulness or Abuse of Confidence: This includes

misappropriating, converting, or denying receipt of money, goods, or other personal
property delivered by the offended party.
2. Estafa with False Pretenses: This covers using fraudulent means to obtain something
of value, such as deceit, falsehood, or fraudulent representation.
3. Estafa by Postdating a Check: Writing a check knowing there are insufficient funds
to cover it may also be considered estafa.

Elements

While the specific elements can vary depending on the type of estafa, generally, the
following must be proven:

1. Deceit or Fraud: There must be evidence of deceit, fraudulent acts, or false pretenses.
2. Damage or Prejudice: The victim must have suffered damage or prejudice as a result
of the fraudulent act.
3. Intent: There must be a clear intention to defraud on the part of the accused.

Penalties

The penalties for estafa can be severe and are determined by various factors, such as the
value of the fraud, the means used, and the circumstances of the offense. Penalties can
range from arresto mayor (1 month and 1 day to 6 months) to reclusion temporal (12 years
and 1 day to 20 years), along with corresponding fines.

Page 5 of 19
Defenses

Defending against an estafa charge requires a detailed understanding of the specific

circumstances and may include:

1. Lack of Intent: Demonstrating that there was no intent to defraud.

2. Absence of Damage or Prejudice: Showing that no actual damage or prejudice
occurred.
3. Consent or Agreement: Establishing that there was a mutual agreement or consent to
the actions taken.

It's essential to consult with a legal professional specializing in Philippine criminal law to
explore these or other potential defenses in detail.

Conclusion

Estafa is a complex and serious offense in the Philippines. Its multifaceted nature requires
a comprehensive understanding of legal principles, including the specific type of estafa, its
elements, and available defenses. Legal professionals play a vital role in navigating these
complexities, whether representing an individual accused of estafa or providing counsel to
prevent potential legal risks.

Note: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Laws, interpretations, and legal strategies may vary, and individuals are encouraged to
consult with a legal professional within their jurisdiction to understand their specific legal
situation related to estafa.
Share

Page 6 of 19
Newer PostCYBER LIBEL IN THE PHILIPPINES: AN IN-DEPTH
EXAMINATION

Older PostSPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY IN THE PHILIPPINES:

PURPOSE, The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows: 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 SECOND
DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 157781. April 11, 2005]

ROBERT CRISANTO D. LEE, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES and ATOZ TRADING CORPORATION, Respondents.

DECISION

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of

Court of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No.
19947 dismissing the appeal of petitioner Robert Crisanto D. Lee and
the Resolution2 denying his motion for reconsideration.

At the instance of Atoz Trading Corporation (ATC), 10 separate

Informations were filed, on September 27, 1994, in the Regional Trial
Court of Pasig City, Branch 159, against petitioner in his capacity as
marketing manager of ATC. The cases were docketed as Criminal Case
Nos. 107020 to 107029. Except for the dates and the amounts
involved, the Informations contained common allegations for the crimes
allegedly committed, as follows:

1. CRIM. CASE No. 107020:

That on or about the 10th day of January, 1992, in the Municipality of

San Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the Marketing
Manager of Atoz Trading Corporation represented by Johnny M.
Jaotegan was authorized to [receive] payments for the company; Thus
received from Ocean Feed Mills Company's Client, the amount
of P47,940.00 through telegraphic transfer, with the corresponding
obligation to remit/account the same to Atoz Trading Corporation; but
accused, far from complying with his obligation to remit the same
despite notices and demands made upon him, with intent [to] gain,
unfaithfulness and grave abuse of confidence and to defraud Atoz
Trading Corporation represented by Johnny M. Jaotegan once in
possession of the money received from Ocean Feed Mills, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously misapplied, misappropriated
and converted to his own personal use and benefit the amount
Page 7 of 19
of P47,940.00 to the damage and prejudice of the complainant in the
aforementioned amount of P47,940.00.

CONTRARY TO LAW.3

Other than Criminal Case No. 107023 which was ordered dismissed on
motion of the prosecution, joint trial on the merits of the remaining
nine cases eventuated, following the arraignment of petitioner on
February 20, 1995 during which he pleaded "Not Guilty."

The proceedings before the trial court and the evidence adduced by the
parties were summarized by the CA as follows:

During the joint trial of the remaining cases, the prosecution presented
the following witnesses: (1) Johnny Jaotegan, the President and Chief
Operating Officer of Atoz Trading Corporation; (2) Jeffrey Corneby, the
general teller of UCPB, Greenhills, San Juan; (3) Maria Concepcion dela
Cruz, the corporate secretary of Ocean Feed Mills; and (4) Ellen Gusar,
the accounting clerk-computer encoder of Atoz Trading Corporation.
Their testimonies tend to establish the following factual backdrop:

Atoz Trading Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Atoz, is a stock

corporation engaged in the trading of animal feeds, feeds supplements,
raw materials and ingredients for feed mills, with herein [petitioner]
Robert Crisanto Lee as the corporation's sales manager from early 90's
to 1994. In the course of Lee's employment therewith, he was able to
bring in Ocean Feed Mills, a Bacolod-based company engaged in the
manufacture of pelletized feeds for prawn and fish, as one of Atoz's
clients. Having "personally found" Ocean Feed Mills, [petitioner]
handled said account.

Transactions between the two companies were then coursed through

[petitioner], so that it was upon the latter's instructions that Ocean
Feed Mills addressed its payments through telegraphic transfers to
either "Atoz Trading and/or Robert Lee" or "Robert Lee" since
[petitioner] explained that it was difficult for him to claim the check at
UCPB Greenhills.

When [petitioner] ceased reporting for work in 1994, Atoz audited

some of the accounts handled by him. It was then that Atoz discovered
Ocean Feed Mills' unpaid account in the amount of P318,672.00. Atoz
thus notified Ocean Feed Mills that [petitioner] was no longer
connected with the corporation, and advised it to verify its accounts.
Promptly preparing a certification and summary of payments, Ocean
Feed Mills informed Atoz that they have already fully settled their
accounts and even made overpayments.

Page 8 of 19
Bank documents prepared and submitted by UCPB Greenhills, San
Juan, later showed that [petitioner] maintained therewith Savings
Account No. 117-105532-0, to which account the payments made by
Ocean Feed Mills to Atoz through telegraphic transfers, have either
been credited or deposited. Jeffrey Corneby, UCPB Greenhills' general
teller, testified that upon receipt of telegraphic transfers coursed
through UCPB, it is customary for said bank to either credit the amount
to payee's account if payee has an account with the bank, or just issue
a manager's check for the amount transmitted if the payee has no
account.

Meanwhile, Ellen Gusar, whose duty was to prepare statement of

accounts to be sent to Atoz's clients, attested that [petitioner] took the
duly-prepared statement of accounts of Ocean Feed Mills and never
returned the same, on the pretext that he had already sent them to the
Ocean Feed Mills. She also confirmed that, as of September 30, 1992,
the subsidiary ledger of Atoz showed that Ocean Feed Mills had an
outstanding balance of P318,672.00.

After the prosecution rested its case, the [petitioner] filed a Demurrer
to Evidence, therein alleging that the evidence thus far presented by
the prosecution in each of the cases were insufficient inasmuch as "[I]t
is bereft of any evidence of formal demand upon the accused to remit
the amounts allegedly misappropriated, before the filing of the subject
cases." In an Order dated January 23, 1996, the trial court denied the
demurrer for lack of factual and legal basis (Records, p. 200).

In his defense, [petitioner] maintained that he had informed Lu Hsui

Nan, the man whom he alleged to be the "real" president of Atoz, of
the manner in which Ocean Feed Mills transmitted its payments and
that Nan said "it is okay although unusual, as long as I [petitioner]
maintain the customer and the relationships and as long as they pay
us" (TSN, March 26, 1996, p. 14). He also asserted that as soon as the
bank credited the remittances to his account, he would withdraw the
same either in cash or in the form of manager's checks and remitted
the same to Beth Ligo, Atoz's cashier. He insisted, however, that Beth
Ligo, instead of issuing acknowledgment receipts of the aforesaid
remittances, merely recorded the same and furnished copies thereof to
the credit and collections and the accounting departments of Atoz.

On rebuttal, the prosecution recalled Johnny Jaotegan to the witness

stand, and presented additional witnesses, namely: (1) Lu Hsui Nan,
whom the prosecution presented as Atoz's vice president and director;
and (2) Elizabeth Ligo, Atoz's cashier from 1985 to 1994.

Nan denied having knowledge that Ocean Feed Mills made payments
through telegraphic transfers addressed to "Atoz Trading Corporation

Page 9 of 19
and/or Robert Lee" as payee, saying that he only learned of the same
when [petitioner] ceased working for the corporation.

Ligo, on the other hand, testified that she did not receive any payment
from Ocean Feed Mills, hence she did not issue provisional receipts for
the same. She added that it was only on April 7, 1992 when she issued
Provisional Receipt No. 502 for Ocean Feed Mills' payment
of P25,500.00 collected by [petitioner].

Jaotegan claimed that on August 12, 1994, between 10 p.m. to 1 a.m.,

he went to Parañaque, accompanied by his counsel and some
policemen, and tried to locate [petitioner], and that upon finding
him, "we asked him [petitioner] to remit the payments made by Ocean
Feed Mills to Atoz Trading Corporation." (TSN, 14 May 1996, p. 19).

On sur-rebuttal, [petitioner] declared that Jaotegan did not demand the

payments made by Ocean Feed Mills [Company] but only demanded
from him the return of the service car and the cellular phone assigned
to him.4

On July 23, 1996, the trial court rendered judgment convicting the
petitioner of the crimes charged. The dispositive portion of the decision
reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds accused ROBERT

CRISANTO LEE guilty beyond reasonable doubt of nine (9) counts of
the crime of Estafa, defined and penalized under Art. 315, par. 1(b) of
the Revised Penal Code and there being no mitigating nor aggravating
circumstances present in the commission of the crime hereby
sentences said accused to suffer the following:

1) In Crim. Case No. 107020 - An indeterminate penalty of two (2)

years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision
correccional in its medium period as minimum to eight (8) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor in its medium period as maximum and to
pay Atoz Trading Corporation the amount of P47,940.00 as actual
damages plus costs.

2) In Crim. Case No. 107021 - An indeterminate penalty of two (2)

years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision
correccional in its medium period as minimum to eight (8) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor in its medium period as maximum and to
pay Atoz Trading Corporation the amount of P47,940.00 as actual
damages plus costs.

3) In Crim. Case No. 107022 - An indeterminate penalty of two (2)

years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision
correccional in its medium period as minimum to five (5) years and six

Page 10 of 19
(6) months of prision correccional in its maximum period as maximum
and to pay Atoz Trading Corporation the amount of P17,000.00 as
actual damages plus costs.

4) In Crim. Case No. 107024 - An indeterminate penalty of two (2)

years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision
correccional in its medium period as minimum to eight (8) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor in its medium period as maximum and to
pay Atoz Trading Corporation the amount of P47,000.00 as actual
damages plus costs.

5) In Crim. Case No. 107025 - An indeterminate penalty of three (3)

years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of prision correccional in its
medium period as minimum to nine (9) years and one (1) day
of prision mayor in its medium period as maximum and to pay Atoz
Trading Corporation the amount of P54,000.00 as actual damages plus
costs.

6) In Crim. Case No. 107026 - An indeterminate penalty of one (1)

year and nine (9) months of prision correccional in its minimum period
as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor in its
minimum period as maximum and to pay Atoz Trading Corporation the
amount of P15,000.00 as actual damages plus costs.

7) In Crim. Case No. 107027 - An indeterminate penalty of two (2)

years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision
correccional in its medium period as minimum to eight (8) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor in its medium period as maximum and to
pay complainant the amount of P23,256.00 as actual damages plus
costs.

8) In Crim. Case No. 107028 - An indeterminate penalty of three (3)

years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of prision correccional in its
medium period as minimum to fifteen (15) years, eight (8) months and
one (1) day of reclusion temporal in its medium period as maximum
and to pay private complainant the amount of P93,000.00 as actual
damages plus costs.

9) In Crim. Case No. 107029 - An indeterminate penalty of two (2)

years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision
correccional in its medium period as minimum to eight (8) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor in its medium period as maximum and to
pay private complainant Atoz Trading Corporation the amount
of P44,696.00 as actual damages plus costs.

SO ORDERED.5

The petitioner appealed the decision to the CA contending that:

Page 11 of 19
A) THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED
GUILTY OF ESTAFA THRU CONVERSION OR MISAPPROPRIATION EVEN
WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR DEMAND; AND

B) THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE IS

EVIDENCE OF CONVERSION OR MISAPPROPRIATION SINCE THERE IS
LACK OF IT. (Appellant's Brief, p. 4; Rollo, pp. 32-40, 35).6

In a Decision on September 13, 2002, the CA dismissed the appeal and

affirmed the assailed decision. The appellate court, likewise, dismissed
the petitioner's motion for the reconsideration of its decision.

Aggrieved by the aforementioned rulings, the petitioner filed the instant

Petition for Review and raised the following:

A.) WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER CAN BE CONVICTED FOR THE

CRIME OF ESTAFA THRU CONVERSION (ART. 315, PAR. 1 - [b] OF THE
REVISED PENAL CODE), LACKING THE ELEMENT OF FORMAL DEMAND
BEFORE THE FILING OF THE CASES AGAINST HIM; AND

B.) WHETHER THE QUESTIONED DECISION AND RESOLUTION WERE

ISSUED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION OR NOT.7

The petitioner contends that demand is a condition sine qua non to the
filing of a criminal complaint for estafa. He posits that demand must be
made formally. The petitioner cites the commentary of Justice Ramon
C. Aquino, based on the rulings of the CA in People v.
Pendon8 and People v. Bastiana.9 The petitioner, likewise, echoes the
commentary of Justice Aquino that even in Tubb v. People,10 the Court
ruled that there must be demand for funds or property held in trust.
The petitioner asserts that the respondents failed to prove the element
of demand on its evidence-in-chief and attempted to prove the same
only on its rebuttal evidence. In any event, the petitioner asserts that
the evidence adduced by the respondents to prove the petitioner's
misappropriation is doubtful.

The respondents refute the contention of the petitioner, thus:

The fourth element of estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised
Penal Code, i.e., that demand was made by the offended party, was
adequately and clearly proven by the prosecution. It must be stressed
that prior to the filing of the subject criminal cases against petitioner,
private complainant's president, Johnny Jaotegan, had demanded from
petitioner to turn over to him the subject sums of money. Thus, in the
evening of August 12, 1994, Johnny Jaotegan, along with his counsel
Atty. Fernando Flor and some Parañaque policemen, went to
petitioner's house in Parañaque and there he asked petitioner to remit
said sums of money and to return the company car and a cellular

Page 12 of 19
phone (TSN, May 14, 1996, pp. 16-19). It also appears that earlier,
private complainant's officers had encountered difficulty in locating
petitioner after his continued failure to report for work in August 1994,
prompting said officers to seek the assistance of the Parañaque police
for that purpose (Ibid., p. 17). Evidently, as petitioner admitted, there
was a demand made on him to account for the money he had collected
from private complainant's customer.

Contrary to petitioner's proposition, prior demand need not be made

formally (See People v. Valeriano, CA, 61 O.G. 282, 284 [1965],
citing Tubb v. People, 101 Phil. 114 [1957]). This Honorable Court has
suggested in the Tubb case that previous demand may be made in
whatever form. There, the complainant, after having failed to locate the
whereabouts of the accused to whom he had entrusted P6,000.00 for
the purchase of rattan and who neither delivered the rattan nor
returned the money, met the accused by chance at the Manila Hotel
one year later and asked him about the money. Charged with estafa,
the accused claimed that no demand had been made upon him. The
Honorable Court declared:

"It is urged that there can be no estafa without a previous demand,

which allegedly has not been made upon herein petitioner, but the
aforementioned query made to him by Quasha, in the Manila Hotel,
was tantamount to a demand. Besides, the law does not require a
demand as a condition precedent to the existence of the crime of
embezzlement. It so happens only that failure to account, upon
demand for funds or property held in trust, is circumstantial evidence
of misappropriation. The same [may], however, be established in the
case at bar."

(Tubb v. People, supra, at 119)

Indeed, in Barrameda v. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 477, 485 [1999],

this Honorable Court, citing Tubb v. People, supra, held that the
specific word "demand" need not be used to show that demand had,
indeed, been made upon the person charged with the offense. A query
as to the whereabouts of the money is tantamount to a demand.

Notably, in his cited book, former Chief Justice Aquino does not, in
anyway, purport to subscribe to the view that a demand must be made
formally. What he merely says is that while this Honorable Court ruled
in Tubb that, under the law, a demand is not a condition precedent to
the existence of the crime of embezzlement and that the failure to
account, upon demand, for funds or property held in trust is
circumstantial evidence of misappropriation, the same ruling states that
there must still be some demand, regardless of its form. In the same
manner, while he cited in his book the Court of Appeals' ruling
in People v. Pendon (supra) and People v. Bastiana (supra) that such
Page 13 of 19
demand must be made formally and before the action is filed and that
in the absence of demand, an accused cannot be convicted of estafa, it
is apparent therefrom that Justice Aquino made use of the citation only
to set forth the diverging opinions of the Court of Appeals on the
matter, namely, (1) one view holding that the demand must be made
formally (People v. Pendon, supra); (2) another one holding that such
demand is not required if there is a specified time for delivery (People
v. Librea, CA, 48 O.G. 5304); and (3) still another one holding that a
report to the police was considered a demand (People v. Baquir, CA-
G.R. No. 5349-R, January 26, 1951).11

misappropriation or We agree with the respondents.

Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code reads:

ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another
by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished by:

1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:

(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.

The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows: 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.12

The words "convert" and "misappropriate" as used in the aforequoted

law 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" a thing of value for one's own use or
benefit, not only the conversion to one's personal advantage but also
every attempt to dispose of the property of another without a
right.13 Misappropriation or conversion may be proved by the
prosecution by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.

Demand is not an element of the felony or a condition precedent to the

filing of a criminal complaint for estafa. Indeed, the accused may be

Page 14 of 19
convicted of the felony under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the
Revised Penal Code if the prosecution proved misappropriation or
conversion by the accused of the money or property subject of the
Information.14 In a prosecution for estafa, demand is not necessary
where there is evidence of misappropriation or conversion.15 However,
failure to account upon demand, for funds or property held in trust, is
circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.16

Demand need not be formal. It may be verbal. In Barrameda v. Court

of Appeals,17 the Court ruled that even a query as to the whereabouts
of the money is tantamount to a demand:

It must be noted that the specific word "demand" need not be used to
show that demand had, indeed, been made upon the person charged of
the offense. A query as to the whereabouts of the money, such as the
one proven in the case at bench, is tantamount to a demand.18

In the present case, the prosecution adduced proof upon cross-

examination of the petitioner that he failed to return the funds held in
trust before the complaint for estafa was filed against him:

Anent the second element of Estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b), there
was a strong and positive evidence that in all the criminal cases filed
before this Court, the accused had, indeed, converted the proceeds of
the telegraphic transfers (remitted by Ocean Feed Mills [Company] in
favor of Atoz Trading Corporation) to his own benefit. A perusal of the
Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated March 26, 1996, page 30,
reads:

Cross-Examination of Robert

Lee conducted by

Atty. Flor:

Q - According to you, Mr. Witness, the Ocean Feed Mills whenever they
remit their payment, they do it through telegraphic transfer?
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

A - Yes, Sir.

Q - And according to you, the telegraphic transfer is paid to or the

payee is Atoz Trading and/or Robert Crisanto Lee?
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

A - Just Robert Lee only.

Q - That Robert Lee refers to you?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

A - Yes, Sir.

Page 15 of 19
In the foregoing cross-examination, accused admitted that he received
the telegraphic transfers sent by Ocean Feed Mills. In the same
Transcript of Stenographic Notes, pp. 34-36, accused tried to defend
himself by alleging that the proceeds of the remitted amount were
given to Ms. Beth Ligo, cashier of Atoz Trading Corporation.

Cross-Examination

conducted by

Atty. Flor:

Q - This Beth Ligo, Mr. Witness, according to you, she is the cashier of
what company?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

A - Both of Atoz and Chiu-Nichi Agro Resources.

Q - According to you a while ago, whenever the Ocean Feed Mills remit
their payment, it goes to your account at UCPB and then you withdraw
that money from UCPB, Greenhills, sometimes in cash and sometimes
in the form of manager's check payable to Atoz Trading. A while ago,
Mr. Witness, you testified that you withdraw the cash from your bank
account, is it not?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

A - Since it was credited in my account, I have to withdraw it from my

account.

Q - You withdraw the payments remitted from Bacolod to Greenhills

UCPB, from your bank account?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

A - Because it was credited.

Q - My question is, did you withdraw the remittances from your bank
account?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

A - Yes, Sir.

Q - After you withdraw that money from your bank account, you
immediately go and see Miss Beth Ligo and surrender that cash to her,
is that what you want to tell us?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

A - What do you mean by immediate.

Q - According to you, a while ago, Mr. Witness, UCPB Greenhills is just

in front of your office at Greenhills, is it not?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

A - Correct, Sir.

Q - When you learned that there is a remittance from Bacolod from

their payment of Atoz product, you go to your bank and withdraw that
remittance in cash and immediately with this cash, you just cross the
Page 16 of 19
street and surrender it to the cashier Ms. Beth Ligo, is it not correct?
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

A - If what you mean upon crediting of payment from Ocean Feed Mills
to my account and I withdraw it immediately, sometimes it was
credited and before I know about it a day or two after. That is the
situation.

Q - Yes, my question is when you learned that telegraphic transfer was

made by Ocean Feed Mills to Atoz Trading and/or Robert Lee and
incidentally it ended up in your account, what you normally do is you
go and withdraw that amount in cash and considering that your office is
just across the street, with the cash you go and see the cashier Miss
Beth Ligo and right there and then give her the cash?
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

A - Yes, because all remittances are handed to the cashier.

From the foregoing testimony of the accused, it is clear that Mr. Robert
Crisanto Lee had, indeed, misappropriated or converted to his personal
use the payments of Ocean Feed Mills which were remitted thru
telegraphic transfers in nine (9) instances since the account of Ocean
with Atoz remains outstanding up to the present (Exh. "I," "I-1" and
"J") as corroborated by Ms. Beth Ligo (cashier of Atoz) where she
stated on rebuttal that the accused did not remit these payments of
Ocean. It is evident that the accused assumed the right to dispose of
the remittances as if it were his own, thus, committing conversion with
unfaithfulness and a clear breach of trust.

It is quite obvious that the misappropriation or conversion committed

by the accused resulted to the prejudice of both Atoz Trading
Corporation and Ocean Feed Mills particularly the latter, which had a
belief all along that its payments were credited to its outstanding
balance. Since records reveal that up to this even date, Ocean has an
outstanding balance of P318,672.00, sufficient to constitute injury
within the meaning of Article 315 a(b) of the Revised Penal Code. Thus,
the third element of this kind of Estafa is satisfied.19

The respondents, likewise, adduced evidence on rebuttal testimony of

Johnny M. Jaotegan, the president of ATC, that he, in the company of
policemen, demanded the production of the funds from the petitioner
but that the latter failed to account for and return the same.20

The bare fact that the respondents adduced proof of demand only when
they presented Johnny M. Jaotegan as rebuttal witness and not as a
witness on their evidence-in-chief does not enfeeble the case of the
respondents. It bears stressing that in resolving a case, the trial court
must consider all the evidence adduced by the parties on their

Page 17 of 19
evidence-in-chief, rebuttal evidence and sur-rebuttal evidence.
Moreover, the petitioner testified on sur-rebuttal evidence and denied
the testimony of Jaotegan on rebuttal, hence, cannot feign prejudice.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack

of merit. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

To file an estafa case, the complainant must establish that the accused
defrauded them by either abusing trust, using deceitful means, or employing
fraudulent acts. The amount involved, method of deceit, and other
circumstances determine the severity of the offense and the corresponding
penalty

Question of The Day: "How does one file an estafa case in the Philippines against
a former partner who allegedly defrauded them of a significant amount of
money?"

Introduction: Dealing with financial deception, especially when it involves

someone you once trusted, can be emotionally taxing and legally challenging. In
the Philippines, where trust and personal relationships are highly valued, such
situations not only cause emotional distress but also raise complex legal
questions. It's essential to approach this with both sensitivity and an
understanding of your legal rights.

Legal Overview: Estafa, under Philippine law, is a form of fraud or deceit involving
the abuse of confidence or false pretenses. It is criminalized under the Revised
Penal Code (RPC). To file an estafa case, the complainant must establish that the
accused defrauded them by either abusing trust, using deceitful means, or
employing fraudulent acts. The amount involved, method of deceit, and other
circumstances determine the severity of the offense and the corresponding
penalty.

Practical Advice:

 Document all transactions and communications related to the alleged fraud.

 Seek legal advice to understand the specifics of your case and the evidence
required.

Page 18 of 19
 Stay emotionally grounded; avoid making decisions in a state of anger or
distress.
 Consider alternative dispute resolution methods, like mediation, before
resorting to legal action.

Law Firm Assistance: Respicio & Co. Law Firm offers expert legal assistance in
handling estafa cases. Their experienced team can provide comprehensive
guidance on the legal process, evidence gathering, and representation in court,
ensuring that your case is managed effectively and your rights are upheld.

Conclusion: Experiencing financial deceit can be deeply unsettling, more so when

it involves a former partner. Navigating this challenging situation requires a
balanced approach of addressing legal obligations while managing emotional
well-being. It's important to remember that while legal recourse is available,
prioritizing your emotional health and seeking professional guidance can pave the
way for a more constructive resolution.

Page 19 of 19