G.R. No. 102784, 28 February 1996

FACTS:

On or about October 8, 1987, petitioner Rosa Lim who had come from Cebu received from private respondent Victoria Suarez the following two pieces of jewelry; one (1) 3.35 carat diamond ring worth P169,000.00 and one (1) bracelet worth P170,000.00, to be sold on commission basis. The agreement was reflected in a receipt marked as Exhibit “A”6 for the prosecution. The transaction took place at the Sir Williams Apartelle in Timog Avenue, Quezon City, where Rosa Lim was temporarily billeted.

On December 15, 1987, petitioner returned the bracelet to Vicky Suarez, but failed to return the diamond ring or to turn over the proceeds thereof if sold. As a result, private complainant, aside from making verbal demands, wrote a demand letter to petitioner asking for the return of said ring or the proceeds of the sale thereof. In response, petitioner, thru counsel, wrote a letter to private respondent’s counsel alleging that Rosa Lim had returned both ring and bracelet to Vicky Suarez sometime in September, 1987, for which reason, petitioner had no longer any liability to Mrs. Suarez insofar as the pieces of jewelry were concerned. Irked, Vicky Suarez filed a complaint for estafa under Article 315, par l(b) of the Revised Penal Code for which the petitioner herein was convicted by both the RTC and the CA. Hence this petition.

Petitioner has a different version.

Petitioner denied that the transaction was for her to sell the two pieces of jewelry on commission basis. She told Mrs. Suarez that she would consider buying the pieces of jewelry far her own use and that she would inform the private complainant of such decision before she goes back to Cebu. Thereafter, the petitioner took the pieces of jewelry and told Mrs. Suarez to prepare the “necessary paper for me to sign because I was not yet prepare (d) to buy it.” After the document was prepared, petitioner signed it. To prove that she did not agree to the terms of the receipt regarding the sale on commission basis, petitioner insists that she signed the aforesaid document on the upper portion thereof and not at the bottom where a space is provided for the signature of the person(s) receiving the jewelry.

On October 12, 1987 before departing for Cebu, petitioner called up Mrs. Suarez by telephone in order to inform her that she was no longer interested in the ring and bracelet. Mrs. Suarez replied that she was busy at the time and so, she instructed the petitioner to give the pieces of jewelry to Aurelia Nadera who would in turn give them back to the private complainant. The petitioner did as she was told and gave the two pieces of jewelry to Nadera as evidenced by a handwritten receipt, dated October 12, 1987.

ISSUE:

First, what was the real transaction between Rosa Lim and Vicky Suarez a contract of agency to sell on commission basis as set out in the receipt or a sale on credit; and, second, was the subject diamond ring returned to Mrs. Suarez through Aurelia Nadera?

RULING:

Petitioner maintains that she cannot be liable for estafa since she never received the jewelries in trust or on commission basis from Vicky Suarez. The real agreement between her and the private respondent was a sale on credit with Mrs. Suarez as the owner-seller and petitioner as the buyer, as indicated by the bet that petitioner did not sign on the blank space provided for the signature of the person receiving the jewelry but at the upper portion thereof immediately below the description of the items taken.

The contention is far from meritorious.

Even if Rosa Lim’s signature indeed appears on the upper portion of the receipt immediately below the description of the items taken: We find that this fact does not have the effect of altering the terms of the transaction from a contract of agency to sell on commission basis to a contract of sale. Neither does it indicate absence or vitiation of consent thereto on the part of Rosa Lim which would make the contract void or voidable. The moment she affixed her signature thereon, petitioner became bound by all the terms stipulated in the receipt. She, thus, opened herself to all the legal obligations that may arise from their breach. This is clear from Article 1356 of the New Civil Code which provides:

Contracts shall be obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present. . . .

Petitioner insists, however, that the diamond ring had been returned to Vicky Suarez through Aurelia Nadera, thus relieving her of any liability.

The issue as to the return of the ring boils down to one of credibility. Weight of evidence is not determined mathematically by the numerical superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given fact. It depends upon its practical effect in inducing belief on the part of the judge trying the case. In the case at bench, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals gave weight to the testimony of Vicky Suarez that she did not authorize Rosa Lim to return the pieces of jewelry to Nadera.

We shall not disturb this finding of the respondent court. It is well settled that we should not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in determining the credibility of witnesses, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted. The reason is that the trial court is in a better position to determine questions involving credibility having heard the witnesses and having observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.

All the elements of estafa under Article 315, Paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, are present in the case at bench. First, the receipt marked as Exhibit “A” proves that petitioner Rosa Lim received the pieces of jewelry in trust from Vicky Suarez to be sold on commission basis. Second, petitioner misappropriated or converted the jewelry to her own use; and, third, such misappropriation obviously caused damage and prejudice to the private respondent. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.

*Case digest by Paul C. Gandola (Refresher), Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY 2019-2020