In the case of Osental v. People, the Supreme Court affirmed that failure to deliver proceeds from the sale of goods or return unsold goods under a trust receipt agreement constitutes estafa. This ruling emphasizes the importance of fulfilling obligations in trust receipt transactions and clarifies the elements needed to prove estafa in such cases. It serves as a stern reminder to entrustees about their responsibilities and the legal consequences of misappropriating funds or goods entrusted to them.

The Perils of Broken Promises: A Trust Receipt Gone Wrong

The case revolves around Rosien Osental, who was convicted of estafa for failing to fulfill her obligations under a trust receipt agreement with Maria Emilyn Te. Te provided Osental with P262,225.00 to purchase ready-to-wear (RTW) goods for sale, with the agreement that Osental would deliver the proceeds of the sale or return the unsold goods by a specific date. When Osental failed to do either, Te filed a complaint for estafa. The central legal question is whether Osental’s actions met the criteria for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Presidential Decree No. 115 (PD 115), which governs trust receipt transactions.

To fully understand the court’s decision, we must first delve into the specifics of a trust receipt agreement. A trust receipt is a security agreement where the entruster (Te in this case) provides goods or money to the entrustee (Osental) for a specific purpose, typically sale or processing. The entrustee then holds the goods or proceeds in trust for the entruster. This arrangement is governed by PD 115, which defines a trust receipt transaction as:

Section 4. What constitutes a trust receipt transaction. A trust receipt transaction, within the meaning of this Decree, is any transaction by and between a person referred to in this Decree as the entruster, and another person referred to in this Decree as entrustee, whereby the entruster, who owns or holds absolute title or security interests over certain specified goods, documents or instruments, releases the same to the possession of the entrustee upon the latter’s execution and delivery to the entruster of a signed document called a “trust receipt” wherein the entrustee binds himself to hold the designated goods, documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods, documents or instruments with the obligation to turn over to the entruster the proceeds thereof to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or the goods, documents or instruments themselves if they are unsold or not otherwise disposed of, in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the trust receipt.

In this context, the Supreme Court emphasized that a trust receipt agreement imposes clear duties on the entrustee. The entrustee is obligated to either turn over the proceeds of the sale or return the goods if they remain unsold. Failure to comply with these obligations can lead to prosecution for estafa, as stipulated in Section 13 of PD 115, which states:

Section 13. Penalty clause. The failure of an entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents or instruments covered by a trust receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or to return said goods, documents or instruments if they were not sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt shall constitute the crime of estafa, punishable under the provisions of Article Three hundred and fifteen, paragraph one (b) of Act Numbered Three thousand eight hundred and fifteen, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code.

The elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, which the prosecution needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, 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 obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return it;
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. There is demand by the offended party to the offender.

In Osental’s case, all these elements were present. First, Osental received money from Te in trust for the purchase of RTW goods, with a clear obligation to return the proceeds or the unsold goods. Second, Osental denied receiving the money and the existence of the trust receipt agreement. Third, Te suffered damages as a result of Osental’s failure to fulfill her obligations. Fourth, Te sent a demand letter to Osental, which was ignored. Osental claimed that her signature on the trust receipt was forged, but the courts found insufficient evidence to support this claim.

The Supreme Court gave weight to the straightforward testimonies of Te and Escobar (the witness to the trust receipt), and ruled that the evidence presented by Osental was insufficient to prove forgery. The Court also highlighted a crucial legal principle: criminal liability cannot be compromised. Even though Osental and Te entered into a compromise agreement to settle the civil aspect of the case, this did not extinguish Osental’s criminal liability for estafa. As the Court stated in Trinidad v. Office of the Ombudsman:

It is a firmly recognized rule, however, that criminal liability cannot be the subject of a compromise. For a criminal case is committed against the People, and the offended party may not waive or extinguish the criminal liability that the law imposes for its commission.

Considering the enactment of Republic Act No. 10951, which amended Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, the Supreme Court modified the penalty imposed on Osental. The new law adjusts the penalties based on the amount of the fraud. The Court ultimately modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of arresto menor or thirty (30) days, as minimum, to prision correccional or two (2) years and four (4) months, as maximum.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Rosien Osental was guilty of estafa for failing to fulfill her obligations under a trust receipt agreement, specifically whether she misappropriated or failed to return the money entrusted to her for purchasing RTW goods.
What is a trust receipt agreement?	A trust receipt agreement is a legal arrangement where one party (the entruster) provides goods or money to another party (the entrustee) for a specific purpose, such as selling goods, with the obligation to turn over the proceeds or return the goods.
What are the elements of estafa in this case?	The elements of estafa are: (1) receiving money in trust, (2) misappropriation or denial of receipt, (3) prejudice to another, and (4) demand by the offended party.
Can criminal liability be compromised?	No, criminal liability cannot be compromised. A criminal case is committed against the People, and the offended party cannot waive or extinguish the criminal liability.
What was Osental’s defense?	Osental claimed that she never signed any trust receipt agreement and that the signature affixed above her printed name is not hers. She claimed the signature on the trust receipt was forged.
How did the court rule on the forgery claim?	The court ruled that the evidence presented by Osental was insufficient to prove forgery. The RTC and CA correctly ruled that there is a marked similarity between Osental’s signature in the trust receipt agreement with Osental’s sample signatures in her Pag-IBIG identification card and daily time record
What is the effect of Republic Act No. 10951 on the penalty?	Republic Act No. 10951 amended Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, adjusting the penalties for estafa based on the amount of the fraud. The Supreme Court modified the penalty imposed on Osental in accordance with the new law.
What was the final penalty imposed on Osental?	The Supreme Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of arresto menor or thirty (30) days, as minimum, to prision correccional or two (2) years and four (4) months, as maximum.

This case underscores the importance of honoring obligations under trust receipt agreements and illustrates the legal ramifications of failing to do so. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that criminal liability cannot be taken lightly and that proper adherence to legal and contractual obligations is paramount.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ROSIEN OSENTAL v. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 225697, September 05, 2018