The Supreme Court acquitted Lourdes Cheng of estafa, clarifying that mere failure to return entrusted funds does not automatically constitute criminal fraud. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Cheng misappropriated or converted the private complainants’ funds with abuse of confidence or misrepresentation. This decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between civil liability arising from breach of contract and criminal liability for estafa, especially in financial arrangements like paluwagans.

When a Savings Venture Becomes a Legal Battle: Did Paluwagan Treasurer Cross the Line into Estafa?

This case revolves around Lourdes Cheng, who was charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Cheng served as the secretary, treasurer, and administrator of the “NAPOLCOM Employees Paluwagan,” an informal savings and loan association. Members contributed money with the understanding that it would be lent to borrowers at a 5% monthly interest, with dividends liquidated and returned at year-end. While Cheng successfully managed the paluwagan from 1994 to 1997, she failed to return contributions and interest in December 1998, leading to complaints from the members.

The private complainants alleged that Cheng had misappropriated the funds, failing to return their contributions despite repeated demands. Cheng, however, claimed that she could not collect from borrowers, particularly those from Dagat-dagatan, who were victims of a hold-up, and that some NAPOLCOM employees also failed to repay their loans. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Cheng, finding that she abused her position of trust by lending money to non-members. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, emphasizing that Cheng failed to return the money and render an accounting.

The Supreme Court, however, reversed the CA’s ruling, scrutinizing the elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the RPC. The key legal issue was whether Cheng’s actions constituted misappropriation or conversion of the funds, essential elements for a conviction of estafa. To secure a conviction for estafa, the prosecution must prove: (i) the offender received money, goods or other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same; (ii) he/she misappropriated or converted the money or property received, or denies the receipt of the money or property; (iii) such misappropriation, conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (iv) the offended party made a demand for the return of the money or property given to the offender. The absence of even one element defeats the charge.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the element of misappropriation or conversion beyond reasonable doubt. The essence of estafa with abuse of confidence lies in the misappropriation or conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the rightful owner. The Court emphasized that Cheng did not deceive the private complainants into giving her their money; rather, they mutually formed the paluwagan for extending loans and earning interest. The members willingly contributed, knowing their money would be lent to others, and appointed Cheng as their secretary and treasurer with the authority to manage the funds.

The prosecution argued that Cheng’s act of lending funds to non-members constituted conversion. However, the Court found no specific rule prohibiting lending to non-members; instead, the evidence suggested that such practice was permitted if a member guaranteed the loan. Private complainants like Casimira Acupan even recognized Cheng’s authority to lend funds to non-members. The prosecution’s failure to establish a clear violation of the paluwagan’s rules weakened their case.

The CA erroneously concluded that Cheng’s failure to return the funds and render an accounting constituted circumstantial evidence of misappropriation or conversion. According to Rule 133, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, circumstantial evidence must consist of more than one circumstance, with proven facts leading to a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution solely relied on Cheng’s inability to return the money and provide an accounting, which the defense successfully refuted. Cheng presented records of accounts and demonstrated that members could access them. The court noted that some complainants inflated their investment amounts or even owed money to the paluwagan.

The Court also addressed the issue of civil liability in cases of acquittal. While every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable, the extinction of the penal action does not necessarily extinguish the civil liability. As clarified in Balerta v. People, an acquittal based on reasonable doubt does not exempt the accused from civil liability provable by preponderance of evidence. The Court cited Gloria Dy v. People, explaining that when an accused is acquitted because reasonable doubt exists as to misappropriation or conversion, civil liability may still be awarded.

However, an exception arises when the source of obligation stems from a contract, such as a loan agreement. In those cases, civil liability cannot be recovered in the same criminal case but must be pursued in a separate civil action. This exception did not apply to Cheng’s case. Unlike situations involving simple loan agreements, Cheng held the private complainants’ money as an investment, acting in a fiduciary capacity with the authority to manage the funds. The parties had the opportunity to present evidence regarding the amounts owed, and Cheng admitted accountability for P691,912.81.

The Court invoked the principle of preventing unjust enrichment. Echoing its pronouncement in Khitri v. People, the Court ordered the return of the private complainants’ money to prevent unjust enrichment, given Cheng’s acknowledged liability and obligation. As such, Cheng was ordered to pay P691,912.81, subject to interest from the filing of the Information until full payment. This ruling emphasizes the importance of proving the specific elements of estafa beyond reasonable doubt, while acknowledging the possibility of civil liability arising from the same set of facts.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Lourdes Cheng committed estafa by misappropriating or converting funds entrusted to her as the treasurer of a paluwagan. The Supreme Court focused on whether the prosecution proved misappropriation or conversion beyond reasonable doubt.
What is a paluwagan?	A paluwagan is an informal savings and loan association where members contribute money, which is then lent to borrowers, often with interest. It operates on trust and mutual agreement among its members.
What are the elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the RPC?	The elements are: (1) receiving money in trust, (2) misappropriating or converting the money, (3) causing prejudice to another, and (4) demand for the return of the money. All elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction.
Why was Lourdes Cheng acquitted of estafa?	Cheng was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she misappropriated or converted the funds. The Court found that she did not act with deceit and that the funds were used for the intended purpose of lending to borrowers.
Did the Court find that lending money to non-members constituted estafa?	No, the Court found that lending money to non-members did not automatically constitute estafa, especially since there was no explicit rule prohibiting it. Moreover, this practice had been ongoing since 1994.
What is the difference between civil liability and criminal liability in this case?	Criminal liability requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, while civil liability only requires preponderance of evidence. Cheng was acquitted of the criminal charge of estafa due to lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt but was still held civilly liable.
What is the effect of an acquittal on civil liability?	An acquittal based on reasonable doubt does not automatically extinguish civil liability, which can still be proven by preponderance of evidence. However, if the obligation stems from a contract, civil liability must be pursued in a separate civil action.
Why was Lourdes Cheng ordered to pay P691,912.81 despite her acquittal?	Cheng was ordered to pay this amount to prevent unjust enrichment. She admitted her obligation to return the money, and the Court found sufficient evidence to hold her civilly liable for the amount she failed to return.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case highlights the critical distinction between breach of trust and criminal fraud in financial arrangements. While Cheng’s actions did not amount to estafa, she remained civilly liable for the unreturned funds, reinforcing the importance of accountability in financial dealings. This ruling provides clarity on the elements required to prove estafa and the circumstances under which civil liability may arise even in the absence of criminal culpability.

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: Lourdes Cheng vs. People, G.R. No. 207373, March 23, 2022