This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-06-18 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioner avers that the instant case is different from Sesbreño for the following reasons. First, respondents are charged not with the simple failure to return petitioner's investments, but rather, with: (1) the violation of their fiduciary obligation under the Custodian Receipts when they sold or assigned petitioner's outstanding LTCPs to third parties without its prior knowledge and consent; (2) the misrepresentation that they still had custody of these LTCPs despite the double sale to third parties; (3) the violation of their fiduciary obligation as middleman to remit and account for the interests and proceeds of petitioner's investments after the corporate borrowers have paid the same; (4) the misappropriation of these proceeds; and (5) the unilateral conversion of petitioner's investments in LTCPs into East Asia promissory notes without its knowledge and consent. Second, East Asia is not only the middleman but also the custodian of the LTCPs it purchased in behalf of petitioner as evidenced by the Custodian Receipts. As such, East Asia became a trustee who has the unconditional obligation to deliver the LTCPs to petitioner who is the beneficiary-placer. Its failure to deliver the LTCPs to petitioner amounts to conversion or unlawful deprivation. By selling the LTCPs to third parties and unilaterally replacing them with East Asia promissory notes without petitioner's knowledge and consent, East Asia breached its obligation to hold the same in trust for petitioner's account. Petitioner adds that the characterization of the transactions between the parties as akin to a loan is misplaced and contrary to Fontanilla v. People.[19] In Fontanilla, the Court ruled that a fiduciary relationship exists between an investor and the person to whom he entrusts money for the purpose of investment.[20] In the instant case, the Outright Sales Invoices and Custodian Receipts show that petitioner turned over money to East Asia for the purchase of LTCPs. The criminal charge against respondents constitutes estafa through misappropriation or conversion under Article 315(1)(b). | |||||
|
2005-08-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Accused-petitioner was charged with the crime of estafa through misappropriation or conversion as defined in and penalized under Article 315, paragraph 1(b), of the Revised Penal Code.[16] The elements of the said crime are: 1) that money, goods or other personal property is 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 on the offender.[17] | |||||
|
2005-07-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Accused-petitioner was charged with the crime of estafa through misappropriation or conversion as defined in and penalized under Article 315, paragraph 1(b), of the Revised Penal Code.[16] The elements of the said crime are: 1) that money, goods or other personal property is 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 on the offender.[17] | |||||