FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 102784. February 28, 1996]

ROSA LIM, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; CONTRACTS ARE
OBLIGATORY IN WHATEVER FORM ENTERED; PLACE OF
SIGNATURE IMMATERIAL; PARTY BOUND THEREON THE MOMENT
SHE AFFIXED HER SIGNATURE. - Rosa Lims signature indeed appears
on the upper portion of the receipt immediately below the description of
the items taken. We find that this fact does not have the effect of altering
the terms of the transaction from a contract of agency to sell on
commission basis to a contract of sale. Neither does it indicate absence
or vitiation of consent thereto on the part of Rosa Lim which would make
the contract void or voidable. The moment she affixed her signature
thereon, petitioner became bound by all the terms stipulated in the
receipt. She, thus, opened herself to all the legal obligations that may
arise from their breach. This is clear from Article 1356 of the New Civil
Code which provides: Contracts shall be obligatory in whatever form they
may have been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for their
validity are present. In the case before us, the parties did not execute a
notarial will but a simple contract of agency to sell on commission basis,
thus making the position of petitioners signature thereto immaterial.
2. ID.; ID.; CONTRACT OF AGENCY; NO FORMALITIES REQUIRED. -
There are some provisions of the law which require certain formalities for
particular contracts. The first is when the form is required for the validity of
the contract; the second is when it is required to make the contract
effective as against the third parties such as those mentioned in Articles
1357 and 1358; and the third is when the form is required for the purppose
of proving the existence of the contract, such as those provided in the
Statute of Frauds in Article 1403. A contract of agency to sell on
commission basis does not belong to any of these three categories,
hence, it is valid and enforceable in whatever form it may be entered into.
3. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WEIGHT THEREOF NOT DETERMINED
BY SUPERIORITY IN NUMBERS OF WITNESSES. - Weight of evidence
is not determined mathematically by the numerical superiority of the
witnesses testifying to a given fact. It depends upon its practical effect in
inducing belief on the part of the judge trying the case.
4. ID.; ID.; CREDIBILITY; FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE
COURTS GENERALLY NOT INTERFERED WITH ON APPEAL. - In the
case at bench, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals gave weight to
the testimony of Vicky Suarez that she did not authorize Rosa Lim to
return the pieces of jewelry to Nadera. We shall not disturb this finding of
the respondent court. It is well settled that we should not interfere with the
judgment of the trial court in determining the credibility of witnesses,
unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstances of weight
and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has
been misinterpreted. The reason is that the trial court is in a better
position to determine questions involving credibility having heard the
witnesses and having observed their deportment and manner of testifying
during the trial.
5. CRIMINAL LAW; ESTAFA WITH ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE;
ELEMENTS. - The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence under this
subdivision are as follows: (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 a demand made by the
offended party to the offender (Note: The 4th element is not necessary
when there is evidence of misappropriation of the goods by the
defendant).
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. All the elements of estafa
under Article 315, Paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, are present
in the case at bench. First, the receipt marked as Exhibit A proves that
petitioner Rosa Lim received the pieces of jewelry in trust from Vicky
Suarez to be sold on commission basis. Second, petitioner
misappropriated or converted the jewelry to her own use; and, third, such
misappropriation obviously caused damaged and prejudice to the private
respondent.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Zosa & Quijano Law Offices for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondents.
D E C I S I O N
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J .:
This is a petition to review the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR No. 10290, entitled People v. Rosa Lim, promulgated on August 30,
1991.
On January 26, 1989, an Information for Estafa was filed against petitioner
Rosa Lim before Branch 92 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
[1]
The
Information reads:
That on or about the 8th day of October 1987, in Quezon City, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused with intent to gain,
with unfaithfulness and/or abuse of confidence, did, then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously defraud one VICTORIA SUAREZ, in the following
manner, to wit: on the date and place aforementioned said accused got and received in
trust from said complainant one (1) ring 3.35 solo worth P169,000.00, Philippine
Currency, with the obligation to sell the same on commission basis and to turn over
the proceeds of the sale to said complainant or to return said jewelry if unsold, but the
said accused once in possession thereof and far from complying with her obligation
despite repeated demands therefor, misapplied, misappropriated and converted the
same to her own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said
offended party in the amount aforementioned and in such other amount as may be
awarded under the provisions of the Civil Code.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
[2]

After arraignment and trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Finding accused Rosa Lim GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of
estafa as defined and penalized under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal
Code;
2. Sentencing her to suffer the Indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS and
TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional as minimum, to TEN (10) YEARS
of prision mayor as maximum;
3. Ordering her to return to the offended party Mrs. Victoria Suarez the ring or its
value in the amount of P169,000 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency; and
4. To pay costs.
[3]

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Judgment of conviction with
the modification that the penalty imposed shall be six (6) years, eight (8)
months and twenty- one (21) days to twenty (20) years in accordance with
Article 315, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
[4]

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration before the appellate court on
September 20, 1991, but the motion was denied in a Resolution dated
November 11, 1991.
In her final bid to exonerate herself, petitioner filed the instant petition for
review alleging the following grounds:
I
THE RESPONDENT COURT VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION, THE RULES
OF COURT AND THE DECISION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN NOT
PASSING UPON THE FIRST AND THIRD ASSIGNED ERRORS IN
PETITIONERS BRIEF;
II
THE RESPONDENT COURT FAILED TO APPLY THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE WAS WAIVED WHEN THE PRIVATE
PROSECUTOR CROSS-EXAMINED THE PETITIONER AND AURELIA
NADERA AND WHEN COMPLAINANT WAS CROSS-EXAMINED BY THE
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER AS TO THE TRUE NATURE OF THE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHEREIN IT WAS DISCLOSED
THAT THE TRUE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES WAS A SALE OF
JEWELRIES AND NOT WHAT WAS EMBODIED IN THE RECEIPT MARKED
AS EXHIBIT A WHICH WAS RELIED UPON BY THE RESPONDENT COURT
IN AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AGAINST HEREIN
PETITIONER; and
III
THE RESPONDENT COURT FAILED TO APPLY IN THIS CASE THE
PRINCIPLE ENUNCIATED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT TO THE EFFECT
THAT ACCUSATION IS NOT, ACCORDING TO THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW,
SYNONYMOUS WITH GUILT: THE PROSECUTION MUST OVERTHROW
THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE WITH PROOF OF GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT. TO MEET THIS STANDARD, THERE IS NEED FOR
THE MOST CAREFUL SCRUTINY OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE STATE,
BOTH ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY, INDEPENDENTLY OF WHATEVER
DEFENSE IS OFFERED BY THE ACCUSED. ONLY IF THE JUDGE BELOW
AND THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COULD ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION
THAT THE CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED PRECISELY BY THE PERSON
ON TRIAL UNDER SUCH AN EXACTING TEST SHOULD SENTENCE THUS
REQUIRED THAT EVERY INNOCENCE BE DULY TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT. THE PROOF AGAINST HIM MUST SURVIVE THE TEST OF
REASON, THE STRONGEST SUSPICION MUST NOT BE PERMITTED TO
SWAY JUDGMENT. (People v. Austria, 195 SCRA 700)
[5]

Herein the pertinent facts as alleged by the prosecution.
On or about October 8, 1987, petitioner Rosa Lim who had come from
Cebu received from private respondent Victoria Suarez the following two
pieces of jewelry: one (1) 3.35 carat diamond ring worth P169,000.00 and one
(1) bracelet worth P170,000.00, to be sold on commission basis. The
agreement was reflected in a receipt marked as Exhibit A
[6]
for the
prosecution. The transaction took place at the Sir Williams Apartelle in Timog
Avenue, Quezon City, where Rosa Lim was temporarily billeted.
On December 15, 1987, petitioner returned the bracelet to Vicky Suarez,
but failed to return the diamond ring or to turn over the proceeds thereof if
sold. As a result, private complainant, aside from making verbal demands,
wrote a demand letter
[7]
to petitioner asking for the return of said ring or the
proceeds of the sale thereof. In response, petitioner, thru counsel, wrote a
letter
[8]
to private respondents counsel alleging that Rosa Lim had returned
both ring and bracelet to Vicky Suarez sometime in September, 1987, for
which reason, petitioner had no longer any liability to Mrs. Suarez insofar as
the pieces of jewelry were concerned. Irked, Vicky Suarez filed a complaint for
estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code for which the
petitioner herein stands convicted.
Petitioner has a different version.
Rosa Lim admitted in court that she arrived in Manila from Cebu sometime
in October 1987, together with one Aurelia Nadera, who introduced petitioner
to private respondent, and that they were lodged at the Williams Apartelle in
Timog, Quezon City. Petitioner denied that the transaction was for her to sell
the two pieces of jewelry on commission basis. She told Mrs. Suarez that she
would consider buying the pieces of jewelry for her own use and that she
would inform the private complainant of such decision before she goes back
to Cebu. Thereafter, the petitioner took the pieces of jewelry and told Mrs.
Suarez to prepare the necessary paper for me to sign because I was not yet
prepare(d) to buy it.
[9]
After the document was prepared, petitioner signed
it. To prove that she did not agree to the terms of the receipt regarding the
sale on commission basis, petitioner insists that she signed the aforesaid
document on the upper portion thereof and not at the bottom where a space is
provided for the signature of the person(s) receiving the jewelry.
[10]

On October 12, 1987 before departing for Cebu, petitioner called up Mrs.
Suarez by telephone in order to inform her that she was no longer interested
in the ring and bracelet. Mrs. Suarez replied that she was busy at the time
and so, she instructed the petitioner to give the pieces of jewelry to Aurelia
Nadera who would in turn give them back to the private complainant. The
petitioner did as she was told and gave the two pieces of jewelry to Nadera as
evidenced by a handwritten receipt, dated October 12, 1987.
[11]

Two issues need to be resolved: First, what was the real transaction
between Rosa Lim and Vicky Suarez - a contract of agency to sell on
commission basis as set out in the receipt or a sale on credit; and, second,
was the subject diamond ring returned to Mrs. Suarez through Aurelia
Nadera?
Petitioner maintains that she cannot be liable for estafa since she never
received the jewelries in trust or on commission basis from Vicky Suarez. The
real agreement between her and the private respondent was a sale on credit
with Mrs. Suarez as the owner-seller and petitioner as the buyer, as indicated
by the fact that petitioner did not sign on the blank space provided for the
signature of the person receiving the jewelry but at the upper portion thereof
immediately below the description of the items taken.
[12]

The contention is far from meritorious.
The receipt marked as Exhibit A which establishes a contract of agency
to sell on commission basis between Vicky Suarez and Rosa Lim is herein
reproduced in order to come to a proper perspective:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY, that I received from Vicky Suarez PINATUTUNAYAN KO
na aking tinanggap kay _______________ the following jewelries:
ang mga alahas na sumusunod:
Description Price
Mga Uri Halaga
1 ring 3.35 dolo P 169,000.00
1 bracelet 170.000.00
total Kabuuan P 339.000.00
in good condition, to be sold in CASH ONLY within . . .days from date of signing this
receipt na nasa mabuting kalagayan upang ipagbili ng KALIWAAN (ALCONTADO)
lamang sa loob ng. . . araw mula ng ating pagkalagdaan:
if I could not sell, I shall return all the jewelry within the period mentioned above; if I
would be able to sell, I shall immediately deliver and account the whole proceeds of
sale thereof to the owner of the jewelries at his/her residence; my compensation or
commission shall be the over-price on the value of each jewelry quoted above. I am
prohibited to sell any jewelry on credit or by installment; deposit, give for
safekeeping; lend, pledge or give as security or guaranty under any circumstance or
manner, any jewelry to other person or persons.
kung hindi ko maipagbili ay isasauli ko ang lahat ng alahas sa loob ng taning na
panahong nakatala sa itaas; kung maipagbili ko naman ay dagli kong isusulit at
ibibigay ang buong pinagbilhan sa may-ari ng mga alahas sa kanyang bahay tahanan;
ang aking gantimpala ay ang mapapahigit na halaga sa nakatakdang halaga sa itaas ng
bawat alahas HIND I ko ipinahihintulutang ipa-u-u-tang o ibibigay na hulugan ang
alin mang alahas, ilalagak, ipagkakatiwala; ipahihiram; isasangla o ipananagot kahit
sa anong paraan ang alin mang alahas sa ibang mga tao o tao.
I sign my name this . . . day of. . . 19 . . . at Manila, NILALAGDAAN ko ang
kasunduang ito ngayong ika____ ng dito sa Maynila.
Signature of Persons who
received jewelries (Lagda
ng Tumanggap ng mga
Alahas)
Address: . . . . . . . . . . .
Rosa Lims signature indeed appears on the upper portion of the receipt
immediately below the description of the items taken. We find that this fact
does not have the effect of altering the terms of the transaction from a
contract of agency to sell on commission basis to a contract of sale. Neither
does it indicate absence or vitiation of consent thereto on the part of Rosa Lim
which would make the contract void or voidable. The moment she affixed her
signature thereon, petitioner became bound by all the terms stipulated in the
receipt. She, thus, opened herself to all the legal obligations that may arise
from their breach. This is clear from Article 1356 of the New Civil Code which
provides:
Contracts shall be obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into,
provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present. x x x.
However, there are some provisions of the law which require certain
formalities for particular contracts. The first is when the form is required for
the validity of the contract; the second is when it is required to make the
contract effective as against third parties such as those mentioned in Articles
1357 and 1358; and the third is when the form is required for the purpose of
proving the existence of the contract, such as those provided in the Statute of
Frauds in Article 1403.
[13]
A contract of agency to sell on commission basis
does not belong to any of these three categories, hence it is valid and
enforceable in whatever form it may be entered into.
Furthermore, there is only one type of legal instrument where the law
strictly prescribes the location of the signature of the parties thereto. This is in
the case of notarial wills found in Article 805 of the Civil Code, to wit:
Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by
the testator himself x x x.
The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the instrumental
witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, except
the last, on the left margin x x x.
In the case before us, the parties did not execute a notarial will but a
simple contract of agency to sell on commission basis, thus making the
position of petitioners signature thereto immaterial.
Petitioner insists, however, that the diamond ring had been returned to
Vicky Suarez through Aurelia Nadera, thus relieving her of any liability. Rosa
Lim testified to this effect on direct examination by her counsel:
Q: And when she left the jewelries with you, what did you do thereafter?
A: On October 12, I was bound for Cebu. So I called up Vicky through telephone and
informed her that I am no longer interested in the bracelet and ring and that 1 will
just return it.
Q: And what was the reply of Vicky Suarez?
A: She told me that she could not come to the apartelle since she was very
busy. So, she asked me if Aurelia was there and when I informed her that Aurelia
was there, she instructed me to give the pieces of jewelry to Aurelia who in turn
will give it back to Vicky.
Q: And you gave the two (2) pieces of jewelry to Aurelia Nadera?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
[14]

This was supported by Aurelia Nadera in her direct examination by
petitioners counsel:
Q: Do you know if Rosa Lim in fact returned the jewelries ?
A: She gave the jewelries to me.
Q: Why did Rosa Lim give the jewelries to you?
A: Rosa Lim called up Vicky Suarez the following morning and told Vicky Suarez that
she was going home to Cebu and asked if she could give the jewelries to me.
Q: And when did Rosa Lim give to you the jewelries?
A: Before she left for Cebu.
[15]

On rebuttal, these testimonies were belied by Vicky Suarez herself:
Q: It has been testified to here also by both Aurelia Nadera and Rosa Lim that you
gave authorization to Rosa Lim to turn over the two (2) pieces of jewelries
mentioned in Exhibit A to Aurelia Nadera, what can you say about that?
A:. That is not true sir, because at that time Aurelia Nadera is highly indebted to me in
the amount of P 140,000.00, so if I gave it to Nadera, I will be exposing myself to a
high risk.
[16]

The issue as to the return of the ring boils down to one of credibility.
Weight of evidence is not determined mathematically by the numerical
superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given fact. It depends upon its
practical effect in inducing belief on the part of the judge trying the case.
[17]
In
the case at bench, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals gave weight to
the testimony of Vicky Suarez that she did not authorize Rosa Lim to return
the pieces of jewelry to Nadera. The respondent court, in affirming the trial
court, said:
x x x This claim (that the ring had been returned to Suarez thru Nadera) is
disconcerting. It contravenes the very terms of Exhibit A. The instruction by the
complaining witness to appellant to deliver the ring to Aurelia Nadera is vehemently
denied by the complaining witness, who declared that she did not authorize and/or
instruct appellant to do so. And thus, by delivering the ring to Aurelia without the
express authority and consent of the complaining witness, appellant assumed the right
to dispose of the jewelry as if it were hers, thereby committing conversion, a clear
breach of trust, punishable under Article 315, par. 1(b), Revised Penal Code.
We shall not disturb this finding of the respondent court. It is well settled
that we should not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in determining
the credibility of witnesses, unless there appears in the record some fact or
circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the
significance of which has been misinterpreted. The reason is that the trial
court is in a better position to determine questions involving credibility having
heard the witnesses and having observed their deportment and manner of
testifying during the trial.
[18]

Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code provides:
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the
means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
xxx xxx xxx
(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.
xxx xxx xxx
The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence under this subdivision
are as follows: (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 a demand made by the offended party to the offender (Note: The
4th element is not necessary when there is evidence of misappropriation of
the goods by the defendant).
[19]

All the elements of estafa under Article 315, Paragraph 1(b) of the Revised
Penal Code, are present in the case at bench. First, the receipt marked as
Exhibit A proves that petitioner Rosa Lim received the pieces of jewelry in
trust from Vicky Suarez to be sold on commission basis. Second, petitioner
misappropriated or converted the jewelry to her own use; and, third, such
misappropriation obviously caused damage and prejudice to the private
respondent.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Decision of the Court of
Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla (Chairman), Bellosillo, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
Vitug, J., In the results.