33.

epublic of tbe Jbilippine$'

~emelourt
:ffla:nila

THIRD DIVISION

ROSELLA BARLIN, G.R. No. 207418

Petitioner,
Present:

LEONEN,J, •
HERNANDO,
Acting Chairperson,
- versus - INTING,
DELOS SANTOS, and
LOPEZ, J. Y., JJ

PEOPLE OF THE Promulgated:

PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. June 23, 2021
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~~~~ - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION

HERNANDO, J.:

Challenged in this petition 1 are the December 6, 2012 Decision2 and

June 10, 2013 Amended Decision3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR No. 31462, which affirmed with modification the May 10, 2006 Decision4
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 151, in Criminal
Case No. 119540 which found Rosella Barlin (petitioner) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Esta/a under Article 315 (1)(6) of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC).

* On Wellness Leave.
1 Rollo, pp. 8-32.
2 CA rollo, pp. 111-129; penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and concurred in by
Associate Justices Agnes Reyes-Carpio and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles.
3
Id. at 150-153.
4 Records, pp. 298-301; penned by Judge Franchito N. Diamante.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 207418

The Antecedents:

The lnformation5 charging petitioner with Esta/a under Article 315

paragraph l(b) of the RPC reads:

Sometime [o]n March 3 to May 8, 1999, in San Juan, Metro Manila, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, received in trust
from Ruth S. Cagayan (sic), Triumph products covered by various trust receipts
in the amount of P74,055.00, with the obligation to dispose and sell the said
item and thereafter remit the same to the complainant, but the accused once in
possession of the said amount and far from complying with her obligation, with
unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence and in violation of the trust reposed on
her, with intent to gain and to defraud said Ruth S. Cagayan (sic), did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate, misapply and
convert to her own personal use and benefit the said amount of P74,055.00,
without authority and knowledge of the said complainant, in the amount of
P74,055.00, and despite demands from the complainant to return the said
amount, said accused failed and refused to return the same to the loss, damage
and prejudice of Ruth S. Cagayan. (sic)

Contrary to law. 6

Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Thereafter, trial on the
merits ensued.

Evidence for the Prosecution:

Private complainant Ruth S. Gacayan (Gacayan) and petitioner were

both dealers of Triumph products in San Juan, Metro Manila. After
petitioner's store was gutted by a fire, Gacayan agreed to place orders of
Triumph products in petitioner's behalf through Gacayan's credit line. Their
transactions were covered by Trust Receipt Agreements (TRAs). The parties
agreed that petitioner would either pay for the items or return them if unsold
after 30 days from receipt thereof. 7

Out of the 22 TRAs presented by the prosecution, only two were signed
by petitioner herself while the others were signed by her salespersons, Margie
Castillo (Castillo) or Eva Varga! (Vargal). 8

On the other hand, Gacayan admitted that she also purchased Avon items
from petitioner covered likewise by TRAs. The value of the Avon
merchandise as well as the returned unsold Triumph products were off-setted
from the amount due from petitioner. 9

5
Id.at 1-2.
6
Id. at I.
7
CA rollo, pp. 112-113.
8
Id.at113.
9
Id. at 114.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 207418

From March 6, 1999 until December 16, 1999, petitioner religiously

returned the unsold items to Gacayan. However, Gacayan claimed that
petitioner failed to pay on time for the other items with a total value of
P74,955.00. Petitioner thus issued checks to pay her obligations to Gacayan
but the checks bounced for having been drawn against a closed account.
Hence, Gacayan filed a criminal complaint for estafa against petitioner.
During trial, Gacayan claimed that petitioner owed her P78,055.00. 10

Evidence for the Defense:

Petitioner was a group and franchise dealer of Avon products. She met
Gacayan, a group dealer of Triumph products, when the former was still a
candidate dealer. When petitioner's store was gutted by fire, she requested
Gacayan to allow her to use her account so she could continue to purchase
Triumph products at a discount. Gacayan agreed on the condition that
petitioner pay the items within a month from receipt thereof. 11

Out of the 22 TRAs submitted by the prosecution, petitioner admitted to

having received the items covered by TRAs 0081 and 0083 only as per her
signature thereon. Petitioner also claimed that Gacayan received Avon
products from her with a total value of P:25,900.00 but this amount was not
deducted from her payables to Gacayan. Neither did Gacayan sign any TRA.
Petitioner insisted that she already returned all unsold products to Gacayan
with a total value of P43,000.00. Thus, she no longer had any liability to
Gacayan. 12

Finally, petitioner admitted that a criminal case for violation of Batas

Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) was filed by Gacayan against her in the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 57 of San Juan, Metro Manila.
Petitioner presented a Compromise Agreement on the civil liability they
entered into on October 16, 2002 on the BP 22 case. She claimed that she was
in the process of paying off the compromise amount of P50,000.00. 13

Ruling of the Regional Trial

Court:

On May 10, 2006, the RTC rendered its Decision14 convicting petitioner
of Esta/a defined and penalized under Article 315, paragraph l(b) of the RPC.

10 Id. at I 13-114.
11
Id. at 114.
12 Id.at114-115.
13
Id. at 115.
14
Supra note 4.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 207418

The RTC found that petitioner received items from Gacayan as per the
TRAs presented by the prosecution. Thus, petitioner could not deny having
procured items from Gacayan. Her failure to remit the proceeds of the sale of
the products or to return the unsold items constitutes the crime of estafa. 15

Moreover, her partial cash payments and the offsetting with the
products procured by Gacayan will not exculpate her from criminal liability
for the crime of estafa. Neither did the alleged compromise agreement she
entered into with Gacayan before the MeTC of San Juan be used as a defense
for prosecution for estafa. 16

Thefallo of the RTC judgment reads: 17

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Rosella Barlin GUILTY beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa defined and penalized under Art. 315
par. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code and imposes upon her the indeterminate
sentence of from FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision
correccional as minimum to THIRTEEN (13) YEARS of reclusion temporal as
maximum and to indemnify complainant Ruth S. Cagayan also known as Ruth
S. Gacayan the sum of P74,055.00 and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED. 18

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

In its assailed Decision, 19 the CA found that petitioner guilty as charged

when she disposed the goods covered thereby without delivering the proceeds
to Gacayan. Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 115 (PD 115), otherwise
known as the Trust Receipts Law, clearly provides that when the entrustee
fails to turn over the proceeds of the sale of goods, documents or instruments
by a trust receipt or to return the goods, documents or instrument if unsold or
not disposed of shall be liable for the crime of estafa under Article 315
paragraph 1(b) of the RPC. 20

The appellate court held that petitioner personally received in her name
the items which were covered by the TRAs. However, despite demand, she
denied receipt of the items except those covered by two TRAs which she
signed herself and failed to pay in full. 21

15 Records, p. 300.
16
ld.at301.
17
Id. at 1 I.
1s Id.
19
Supra note 2.
2
°
21
CA rollo, pp. 120-122.
Id. at 122.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 207418

Nonetheless, the appellate court noted that the prosecution failed to

sufficiently prove the exact amount of petitioner's obligation since Gacayan
submitted inconsistent computations. 22

The appellate court only considered the trust receipts and the amounts
reflected therein which were duly proven by the prosecution, namely, TRA
No. 0081, 23 0083 24 and the trust receipts identified by Gina Tabema (Tabema),
Gacayan's saleslady who testified that Castillo signed TRA No. 0064, 25
0065, 26 0072, 27 0073 28 and 0077 29 in behalf and with authority of petitioner.
The total amount owed, therefore, of petitioner to Gacayan was reduced to
P24,975.00. 30

Moreover, the appellate court ruled that the compromise agreement

entered into by the parties before the MeTC of San Juan with respect to the
criminal case filed by Gacayan against petitioner for the latter's violation of
BP 22 did not novate the TRAs to a contract of loan or relieve Barlin of her
criminal liability and convert it to one merely civil in nature. 31

The dispositive portion of the appellate court's Decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision dated May

10, 2006 in Criminal Case No. 119540 finding accused-appellant ROSELLA
BARLIN guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa under Article
315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code is hereby AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that accused-appellant ROSELLA BARLIN is sentenced to
suffer the indeterminate penalty of four years and two months of prision
correccional as minimum to six years, eight months and 21 days of prision
mayor as maximum. Accused-appellant is ORDERED to indemnify private
complainant Ruth Gacayan in the amount of P24,975.00 as actual damages and
to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED. 32

Upon petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, the CA rendered its June

10, 2013 Amended Decision33 affirming the judgment of conviction but
modifying the minimum penalty imposed, viz.:

22
Id. at 125-126.
23
Records, p. 276
24
Id. at 279.
25
Id. at 260
26 Id. at 261
27
Id. at 267
28 Id. at 268
29 Id. at 272
30 Id.
31
Id. at 126.
32
Id. at 128.
33
Supra note 3.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 207418

"x x x accused-appellant ROSELLA BARLIN is sentenced to suffer

the indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS AND ONE (I) DAY OF
PRISION CORRECCIONAL AS MINIMUM to six years, eight months and 21
days of prision mayor as maximum. Accused-appellant is ORDERED to
indemnify private complainant Ruth Gacayan in the amount of P24,975.00 as
actual damages and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED."34

Hence, this petition.

Issues

Petitioner raises the following errors:

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING

THAT THE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN BARLIN AND GACAYAN ARE
TRUST RECEIPT AGREEMENTS.

II

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONVICTING

BARLIN OF AN OFFENSE NOT SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THE
INFORMATION.

III

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONVICTING

BARLIN OF ESTAFA WHICH WAS NOT PROVEN AND ESTABLISHED
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 35

Our Ruling

All the essential elements of Esta/a are present in this case.

The elements of estafa under Article 315 paragraph (1 )(b) of the RPC
are: (a) 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; (b)
that there is a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by
the offender or a denial of the receipt thereof; (c) that the misappropriation or
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (d) that there is a
demand made by the offended party on the offender. 36

34
CA rollo. p. 152.
35
Rollo, p. 16.
36 Gamaro v. People, 806 Phil. 483,497 (2017).
Decision 7 G.R. No. 207418

First, there is no dispute that petitioner received merchandise from

Gacayan as evidenced by TRAs 0081 and 0083 signed and executed by
petitioner herself. However, contrary to the ruling of the courts below,
petitioner could not be held liable for the other TRAs as they were not signed
by petitioner but either by Castillo or Varga!. We are not persuaded by
Tabema's bare and uncorroborated testimony that petitioner authorized
Castillo and V argal to sign on her behalf.

Aside from the testimony ofTabema, no other evidence was presented by

the prosecution to prove that Castillo or Varga! were authorized by petitioner
to sign or to receive the goods on her behalf. The evidence presented by the
prosecution as to the other TRAs fell short of the standard of moral certainty.

Hence, petitioner could not be made liable for the TRAs other than the
ones she signed, namely, TRAs 0081 and 0083. Any doubt on petitioner's
guilt should be considered in her favor.

As to TRAs 0081 and 0083, the documents clearly stated that petitioner
received in trust the merchandise from Gacayan to: (a) hold the goods in trust;
(b) dispose or sell them for cash and to receive the proceeds in trust; (c)
turnover and remit the proceeds of the sale of goods on or before the due date
less petitioner's commission; and (d) return the goods in the event of non-sale
within period specified or upon demand. Upon default or failure of petitioner
to comply with any of the terms and conditions, Gacayan may cancel the trust
receipt and take possession of the goods subject of the trust or the proceeds
realized therefrom.

The agreement or contract between the parties is the formal expression

of the parties' rights, duties and obligations and is the best evidence of the
parties' intention. Thus, when the terms of agreement have been reduced into
writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can
be, between the parties and their successors-in-interest, no evidence of such
terms other than the contents of the written agreement. 37

Contrary to petitioner's contention, she entered into a trust receipt

agreement with Gacayan and not a barter or exchange. The terms of TRAs
0081 and 0083 were clear that she received the products listed therein in trust
for Gacayan. She obligated herself to dispose the goods and receive the
proceeds of sale in trust for Gacayan. In case the goods were not sold, she
must return them to Gacayan.

Although, admittedly, Gacayan testified that she likewise procured Avon

merchandise from petitioner through the same trust receipt agreement, the said
transactions will not negate petitioner's obligation under TRAs 0081 and

37 Carganillo v. People 743 Phil. 543, 549 (2014) citing Gamboa, Rodriguez, Rivers & Co., Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, 497 Phil. 399 (2005).
Decision 8 G.R. No. 207418

0083. Their offsetting agreement did not modify, amend or novate petitioner's
obligations under TRAs 0081 and 0083.

Second, petitioner failed to tum over the proceeds of the sale of the
products she procured from Gacayan under TRAs 0081 and 0083 upon the
latter's demand. Petitioner even admitted that a similar case with respect to
the same transactions were the subject matter of a criminal case for violation
of BP 22 before the MeTC of San Juan for an amount of f'50,000.00. She
apparently attempted to pay Gacayan post-dated checks worth f>50,000.00
which eventually bounced for having been drawn against a closed account.
This fact alone proves petitioner's culpability that she misappropriated or
converted the proceeds of the sale of the items she held in trust for Gacayan.

Third, petitioner's misappropriation or conversion of the proceeds of the

sale of Gacayan's products caused damage to the latter in the total amount of
f'8,275.00. 38 Gacayan is deemed to have suffered damage when she parted
with her goods and did not receive the proceeds of the sale thereof or the
unsold items were not returned despite demand.

Lastly, Gacayan demanded payment from petitioner under TRAs 0081

and 0083 which went unheeded.

Petitioner's contention that she was not informed of the cause of

accusation against her in the Information fails to convince. The Information
clearly and categorically charged her with Estafa under Article 315 paragraph
(1 )(b) for violating the trust receipt agreements she had entered into with
Gacayan. It must be stressed that a violation of trust receipt agreements would
make the accused criminally liable for estafa under paragraph (1 )(b) of Article
315 of the RPC as expressly provided in Section 13 of the Trust Receipts Law.

The prosecution had proved petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt

for the crime of estafa. The element of damage was sufficiently established
when Gacayan parted with her goods and failed to recover the proceeds of the
sale thereof or the unsold items despite repeated demands. Petitioner herself
admitted that she tried to tum over the proceeds of the sale under the TRAs
through the issuance of post-dated checks which were however dishonored.

Petitioner even admitted before the trial court that the post-dated checks
were issued with respect to the same transactions in this case. She also
presented a Compromise Agreement with respect to the dishonored post-dated
checks executed by the parties before the Me TC of San Juan.

As regards the proper penalty, Article 315 of the RPC, as amended by

Republic Act No. 10951 (RA 10951) provides that the imposable penalty is
38 Goods under TRA 0081 amounted to .1'4,745 while goods under TRA 0083 amounted to .1'3,980, or a total
of.1'8,725. See records, pp. 276 and 279.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 207418

arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, which ranges from two
(2) months and one (1) day to six (6) months when the amount of fraud does
not exceed !'40,000.00. Considering that there is no mitigating and
aggravating circumstance present in this case, the proper penalty should be
within the range of three (3) months and eleven (11) days to four (4) months
and twenty (20) days. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable in
this case since the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year.

Thus, in view of RA 10951 and considering the amount involved, it is

proper to impose upon the petitioner the penalty of three (3) months and
eleven ( 11) days of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods.

In addition, petitioner is ordered to pay Gacayan the unpaid balance of

!'8,275.00 under TRAs 0081 and 0083 plus interest. In conformity with our
ruling in Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 39 the sum of !'8,275.00 shall earn interest
at the rate of 12% per annum from the time of its judicial demand, i.e., filing
of the Information on October 30, 2000 until June 30, 2013 and 6% per annum
from July 1, 2013 until full payment. The prosecution presented a Notice of
Final Demand dated February 28, 2000. However, the same does not prove
receipt by herein petitioner. Hence, absent any proof of the specific date of the
extrajudicial demand, the computation of the legal interest shall start from the
filing of judicial demand or Information. From then, the entire amount of
judgment award shall earn 6% per annum until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The December 6,

2012 Decision and June 10, 2013 Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR No. 31462 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.

Petitioner Rosella Barlin is:

(a) SENTENCED to suffer imprisonment of three (3) months and

eleven (11) days of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum
periods; and

(b) DIRECTED to PAY private complainant Ruth S. Gacayan the

amount of !'8,275.00 with interest of twelve percent (12%) per
annum from the filing of the Information on October 30, 2000 until
June 30, 2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013
until finality of this judgment. Thereafter, the entire amount payable
shall bear interest of six percent (6%) per annum until full
satisfaction thereof.

39
716 Phil. 267 (2013).
Decision 10 G.R. No. 207418

SO ORDERED.

'

Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson

WE CONCUR:

On Wellness Leave.
MARVIC M. V. F. LEONEN
Associate Justice

HENRI B.INTING EDG~ELOSSANTOS

Associate Justice Associate Justice

JHOSE~OPEZ
Associate Justice
Decision 11 G.R. No. 207418

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Acting Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

G.GESMUNDO