Elements of Estafa (Art.

315 paragraph 1(b) RPC)

ANDRE L. D AIGLE vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 174181

xxx the said accused being then the Managing Director of Samfit Phils. received from said Samfit, Phils. for
management, care and custody the following company properties with a total value of P681,665.35 xxx but
accused far from complying with his obligation with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon him by his
employer, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously misapply, misappropriate and convert the
aforesaid corporate properties to his own personal use and benefit and despite several demands made upon
him, accused refused and failed and still refuses and fails to return or account for the same to the damage and
prejudice of Samfit, Phils.,

Entrenched in jurisprudence are the following essential elements of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b)
of the RPC:

1. 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;

2. That there is a 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 a demand made by the offended party on the offender.

Accused Cannot Be Convicted For Estafa If She Had Merely Material, Not Juridical Possession
Of The Cash Or Goods Allegedly Stolen

MARGIE BALERTA VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 205144, November 26, 2014

In the case at bench, there is no question that the petitioner was handling the funds lent by
Care Philippines to BABMPC. However, she held the funds in behalf of BABMPC. Over the funds, she
had mere physical or material possession, but she held no independent right or title, which she can
set up against BABMPC. The petitioner was nothing more than a mere cash custodian. Hence, the
Court finds that juridical possession of the funds as an element of the crime of estafa by
misappropriation is absent in the instant case.

In the prosecution of the crime of estafa, demand need not be formal if there exists evidence
of misappropriation. However, in the instant case, conclusive proofs of both misappropriation and
demand are wanting.
SHEALA P. MATRIDO VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

SHEALA P. MATRIDO VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 179061 July 13, 2009

A sum of money received by an employee in behalf of an employer is considered to be only

in the material possession of the employee.1[28] The material possession of an employee is adjunct,
by reason of his employment, to a recognition of the juridical possession of the employer. So long as
the juridical possession of the thing appropriated did not pass to the employee-perpetrator, the
offense committed remains to be theft, qualified or otherwise.2[29]

CRISTETA CHUA-BURCE vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 109595. April 27, 2000

Juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing which the
transferee may set up even against the owner.3[25]

CHERRY ANN M. BENABAYE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G. R. No. 203466 February 25, 2015

Records show that Benabaye was merely a collector of loan payments from Siam Bank's clients. At
the end of every banking day, she was required to remit all cash payments received together with
the corresponding cash transfer slips to her supervisor, Tupag.46 As such, the money merely passes
into her hands and she takes custody thereof only for the duration of the banking day. Hence, as an
employeeof Siam Bank, specifically, its temporary cash custodian whose tasks are akin to a bank
teller,47she had no juridical possession over the missing funds but only their physical or
material possession.