FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 150536, September 17, 2008]
BIENVENIDO GOMBA, Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,1 Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
CORONA, J.:
Gomba asserts that misappropriation, the second element, is absent.
- 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;
- That there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt;
- That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and
- That there is a demand made by the offended party to the offender.10
[A]n act of using or disposing of another's property as if it were one's own or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To "misappropriate" a thing of value for one's own use or benefit [includes] not only conversion to one's personal advantage but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without a right.11The demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the accused to account for it are circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.12 In this case, Gomba, as common area administrator, received the collections in trust for the association. The association made a demand upon Gomba to remit his collections. He failed to do so, despite several opportunities given to him. This was evidence that he misappropriated the money, bolstered by the fact that he merely submitted reports without the corresponding remittances on various occasions.13
It is elementary that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative and self-serving evidence which has far less evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.With respect to the issue of whether the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, erred in appreciating certain evidence against Gomba, we rule in the negative. It is a settled rule that factual findings of the trial courts, including their assessment of the witnesses' credibility, are entitled to great weight and respect, specially when affirmed by the CA.16 Without any cogent or compelling proof that the lower courts committed reversible error in their decisions, we shall not deviate from the rule.17 We therefore affirm the findings of both the RTC and the CA that Gomba committed estafa punishable under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the RPC.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J., (Chairperson), Carpio Morales,* Azcuna, and Leonardo-De Castro, JJ., JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
* As replacement of Justice Antonio T. Carpio who is on official leave per Special Order No. 515.
1 The Court of Appeals was originally impleaded as a respondent but the Court excluded it pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2 Penned by Associate Justice (now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) Ruben T. Reyes and concurred in by Associate Justices Mercedes Gozo-Dadole (retired) and Juan O. Enriquez, Jr. of the Special Eleventh Division of the Court of Appeals. Rollo, pp. 49-66.
3Rollo, p. 76.
4 TSN, 16 November 1999, p. 4.
5 Dated November 30, 1998 and December 14, 1998.
6 By way of a Kasunduang Tagapamayapa. RTC Records, p. 11.
7 These expenses include honoraria, office supplies, MERALCO bills, borrowings of other directors and other miscellaneous expenses.
8 The other issues raised by Gomba were: (a) whether or not the refusal of the petitioner to submit to
the investigation and finding of the Audit Committee was an implied objection to the admissibility and competency of its audit report; (b) whether or not a mere cursory inspection of the document is enough to determine the authenticity of the handwriting of petitioner; and (c) whether or not the vouchers/promissory notes presented by petitioner were valid deductions to the amount he was supposed to remit.
9 Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) provides: 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.
10 Reyes, Luis B., THE REVISED PENAL CODE, BOOK TWO, ARTICLES 114-367, Sixteenth Edition (2006), Rex Book Store, Inc., p. 742.
11Lee v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 157781, 11 April 2005, 455 SCRA 256, 267.
12Filadams Pharma, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 132422, 30 March 2004, 426 SCRA 460, 468.
13 TSN, 7 April 2000, p. 4.
14Rollo, p. 84.
15 G.R. No. 133004, 20 May 2004, 428 SCRA 617, 630.
16Perez v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 150443, 20 January 2006, 479 SCRA 209, 219-220.
17Pascual v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 160540, 22 March 2007.