BELEN REAL,

Petitioner,

G.R. No. 152065 Present:

PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CORONA, AZCUNA, and LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, JJ.

versus -

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Promulgated: January 29, 2008

X -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
The elements of estafa under Art. 315, par. 1 (b) of the RPC[10] are as follows: (1) 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; (2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; and (3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another.[11] Although the trial court only mentioned in passing that damage was caused to private complainant Uy, it cannot be denied that there exists a factual basis for holding that petitioners refusal to account for or return the pieces of jewelry had prejudiced the rights and interests of Uy. Certainly, disturbance of property rights is equivalent to damage and is in itself sufficient to constitute injury within the meaning of Art. 315, par. 1 (b) of the RPC.[12] In this case, Uy, who is a businessman, not only failed to recover his investment but also lost

the opportunity to realize profits therefrom. Anxiety also set in as he ran the risk of being sued by the person who likewise entrusted him the same pieces of jewelry. To assert his legal recourse, Uy further incurred expenses in hiring a lawyer and in litigating the case.

BURGUNDY CORPORATION, REALTY G.R. No. 181021 ' Petitioner, Present: BRION,* - versus- PERALTA, J., Acting Chairperson, ABAD, MENDOZA, and JOSEFA "JING" C. REYES and LEONEN,JJ. SECRETARY RAUL GONZALEZ of the Promulgated: Respondents. 10 December 2012 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, . d x--------------------------------------------------------------------------~~ ----x DECISION PERALTA, J.:
In the present case, after review and reconsideration, the Secretary of Justice reversed the investigating prosecutor's finding of probable cause that all the elements of the crime of estafa are present. Estafa, under Article 315

(1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code, is committed by

ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow:

xxxx

1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:

(a) x x x (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; x x x

The elements are:

1) that money, goods or other personal property be 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;

2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property

by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt;

3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and

4) that there is demand made by the offended party on the offender.11

The essence of estafa under Article 315, par. 1 (b) is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the owner. The words "convert" and "misappropriate" 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 for one's own use includes not only conversion to one's personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without right.12

The words convert and misappropriate connote the 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.19 To misappropriate for one's own use includes not only conversion to one's personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without right.20 In proving the element of conversion or misappropriation, a legal presumption of misappropriation arises when the accused fails to deliver the proceeds of the sale or to return the items to be sold and fails to give an account of their whereabouts.21 Thus, the mere presumption of misappropriation or conversion is enough to conclude that a probable cause exists for the indictment of Reyes for Estafa. As to whether the presumption can be rebutted by Reyes is already a matter of defense that can be best presented or offered during a full-blown trial.