CASE 1: Rosemarie M. Lee vs. Hon. Rodil (RTC Manila judge) and People o !"e P"ilippines #.R. $o. %&' ' *ul+ 1,%, -ACTS: 1. Lee was the representative of CS Lee Enterprises Inc which opened a letter letter of credit credit worth worth Php 154,71 154,711. 1.97 97 with with Philip Philippin pine e Ban Ban of Co!!"nications for the p"rchase of !erchandise. necessar' ' doc"!ent doc"!ent and then . 19#$% C"lt"re &edia received the necessar !erchandise%% Lee oliga!ed e/e0u!ed a !rus! re0eipt for the said !erchandise
"ersel !o "old !"e mer0"andise in !rus! !o sell !"e same in 0as" acco"nt for the proceeds if sold) (o or !"e a00oun! o !"e an2 (o acco"nt
ret"rn the !erchandise to the *an in case of fail"re to sell the sa!e)
3. 4esp 4espi! i!e e repe repea! a!ed ed dema demand nds5 s5 s"e s"e ail ailed ed !o 0omp 0ompl+ l+ 6i!" 6i!" "er "er oliga!ion and ins!ead appropria!ed !"e mer0"andise or "er o6n personal use. 19#5%% Lee Lee was was char char+e +ed d for for esta estafa fa.. S"e . 19#5 S"e moved moved !o 7uas" 7uas" !"e inorma!ion on !"e grounds: o T"e viola!ion viola!ion o a !rus! agreemen! agreemen! does no! 0ons!i!u! 0ons!i!u!e e es!aa despi!e an e/press provision in !"e Trus! Re0eip!s La6 0"ara0!eri8ing i! as es!aa. o P4 11' is viola!ive o !"e rig"! !"a! no person s"all e imprisoned or non9pa+men! o de!. '. (C denied the !otion to -"ash and "pheld the constit"tionalit' of
•
the law. . & denied. ence, the present petition.
;SS
RAT;=: •
•
P/ 115, S2 e3pressl' provides% (he ailure o an en!rus!ee !o !urn doc"!ents nts or over over !"e !"e pro0 pro0ee eeds ds o !"e !"e sale sale o !"e !"e good goods s, doc"!e instr"!ents 0overed + a !rus! re0eip! !o !"e e/!en! o !"e amoun! o6ing !o !"e en!rus!er or as appears in the tr"st receipt or to ret"rn said said +oods, +oods, doc"!e doc"!ents nts or instr" instr"!en !ents ts if the' the' were were not sold or disposed disposed of in accordanc accordance e with the ter!s of the tr"st receipt receipt s"all 0ons!i!u!e !"e 0rime o es!aa n the case of People v. C"evo 619#1% It was the lower co"rt that dis!issed the infor!ation and r"led o that a violation +ives rise to a civil action onl'. o "t of the 11 !e!*ers of the SC, a !a8orit' of 8"stices :C; were of the view that the violation constit"tes estafa, $ voted otherwise otherwise,, another another $ inhi*ited inhi*ited the!selves the!selves.. (he view of the dissentin+ 8"stices prevailed as a res"lt of the want of 1 vote to
reverse reverse the order of the lower lower co"rt. 6SC affir!ed affir!ed the LC decision despite the !a8orit' view SC &a8orit' view% (he conversion *' the tr"stee in a tr"st o receipt receipt of the proceeds proceeds of the sale falls !ost literall' literall' and directl' directl' "nder the provision provision of estafa estafa thr" !isappropria !isappropriation tion "nder