G.R. No. 182276 - DIONISIO AW A.K.A. TONY GO, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the accused Dionisio Aw alias Tony Go guilty of the crime of Estafa defined and penalized under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 18 years, 2 months and 21 days to 20 years of Reclusion Temporal for Criminal Case No. Q-95-61234. Further, he is ordered to pay Toyota Quezon Avenue the sum of P480,000.00 representing the amount of money which he misappropriated. On reasonable doubt, the Court hereby acquits accused Dionisio Aw of the crime of Estafa in Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-60331, Q-95-61235, Q-95-61236, Q-95-61237 and Q-95-61338. [31] Petitioner appealed his judgment of conviction to the Court of Appeals which was docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 28147. The Court of Appeals agreed with the RTC and rendered a decision dated 27 November 2007, the fallo of which reads: WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the RTC of Quezon City Branch 76 in Criminal Case No. Q-95-61234 is hereby AFFIRMED. [32] Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was similarly denied for lack of merit by the appellate court in a Resolution dated 17 March 2008, [33] hence, this petition based on the following issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals in rendering the contested decision and resolution, had decided a question of substance in a way not in accord with law or applicable decisions of the Honorable Court, and has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to call for an exercise by this Honorable Court of its power of supervision, considering that: a) The Court of Appeals erred in finding the accused guilty of estafa despite failure on the part of the prosecution to prove its elements beyond reasonable doubt. b) The Court of Appeals erred in not applying the principle of Pro Reo considering that the evidence relied upon were verily circumstantial. [34] Striving to be acquitted of the crime charged, petitioner insists that the prosecution: (1) failed to show that Toyota reposed trust and confidence upon him as his appointment letter as Senior Sales Representative does not authorize him to collect and/or receive payments from clients/customers; (2) the Vehicle Sales Proposal states that all check payments shall be under the order of Toyota, while all cash remittances were directly paid to the company's cashier, clearly showing that he did not at any time received any amount from the customers who transacted with him; (3) the checks issued by Tiong although payable in cash were crossed checks, thus meant for deposit only. [35] The petition lacks merit. The elements of Estafa under Article 315, Paragraph 1(B) of the Revised Penal Code are: (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 h