Estafa

Velayo vs. People, November 26, 2014, 743 SCRA 148

Facts: On March 29, 2001 Velayo, entered into an agreement with WJA Holdings, Inc.
represented by its President, a contract to purchase two parcels of land for PhP20 million and
PhP40 million respectively. Notwithstanding the express provision in the parties’ Contract to
Sell that WJA would remit the said taxes, Velayo volunteered to do the errand herself for WJA
and convinced them not to deduct the taxes from the gross price. Hence under the obligation
accused received from the WJA the amount of PhP346,670.00 representing documentary stamp
tax for such transfer and the accused once in possession of the said aggregate amount of
PhP3,346,670.00, which amount accused misapplied, misappropriated and converted to her own
personal use and benefit, and despite repeated demand made upon her, accused failed to comply,
to the damage and prejudice of said complainant.

Velayo maintains that an essential element of the crime of estafa is absent, since it is not shown
that personal property was held by her in trust, on commission, for administration or under any
other circumstance, for WJA.

Issue: Whether or not Velayo did not have juridical possession over the subject funds and could
not therefore be held liable for the crime of estafa.

Ruling: Velayo had sole possession and control of the missing funds intended for payment of the
capital gains and documentary stamps taxes.

That Velayo also had juridical possession of the said amount will become readily apparent as the
Court comes to understand that it was her offer of help in remitting the taxes to BIR which
induced WJA to not withhold the now-missing amounts but instead to entrust the same to her,
upon the understanding that she has to pay the same to BIR in its behalf. It was an obligation
which Velayo assumed personally and not on behalf of ARDC; ARDC itself did not have such a
duty, notwithstanding that the checks were deposited in ARDC’s account. Indeed, Velayo did not
require a prior authority from ARDC to volunteer for the aforesaid task, and WJA fully relied on
Velayo’s assurance that she could withdraw and remit the funds to the BIR, because all
throughout the transaction she acted with full freedom and discretion as regards the funds in the
account of ARDC. Without a doubt, a trust relationship was established between WJA and
Velayo in her personal capacity, not in behalf of or representing ARDC, over the funds she
offered to remit to BIR.