View full case

ROSA LIM v. CA

FACTS:

Petitioner Rosa Lim is facing a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in a criminal case for estafa. The case revolves around an alleged incident wherein Lim received a diamond ring worth P169,000 from Victoria Suarez with the intention of selling it on a commission basis. However, Lim failed to return the ring or hand over the proceeds to Suarez. Lim did return a bracelet worth P170,000 to Suarez but claimed to have also returned the ring. Consequently, Suarez filed a complaint for estafa and Lim was found guilty by the trial court.

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but made modifications to the penalty. Unhappy with the decision, Lim filed a motion for reconsideration but this was subsequently denied. Determined to clear her name, Lim filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court. In her petition, Lim presents various arguments to exonerate herself from the charges.

The prosecution asserts that the transaction between Lim and Suarez involved Lim selling the jewelry on a commission basis. However, Lim contests this, claiming that it was actually a sale on credit. The crux of the issues to be resolved lies in determining the true nature of the transaction and whether or not Lim actually returned the diamond ring.

ISSUES:

  1. 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?

  2. Was the subject diamond ring returned to Mrs. Suarez through Aurelia Nadera?

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled that the transaction between Rosa Lim and Vicky Suarez was a contract of agency to sell on commission basis. The signed receipt, despite Rosa Lim's signature being placed at a different part of the document, upheld this arrangement.

  2. The Supreme Court found that the diamond ring was not returned to Mrs. Suarez through Aurelia Nadera. This finding was based on the credibility assessments made by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, which favored the testimony of Vicky Suarez.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes estafa involving misappropriation or conversion of money or property received in trust or on commission basis.

  • Article 1356 of the New Civil Code establishes that contracts shall be obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present.

  • Assessments of credibility by trial courts are generally upheld unless there is a clear reason to question their findings.