FACTS:

Cherry Ann Benabaye was the Loans Bookkeeper of Siam Bank Inc., Iligan City Branch. Her responsibilities included collecting loan payments, issuing provisional receipts, preparing cash transfer slips, and remitting payments to her supervisor, Jenkin Tupag.

During an audit investigation, Siam Bank discovered that Benabaye had issued 853 provisional receipts amounting to P470,768.00, but the corresponding payments were unremitted. Siam Bank directed Benabaye to explain the discrepancies, and she claimed that Tupag could clarify the situation. Tupag, in his explanation, admitted his accountability but did not disclose the identities of others involved.

Siam Bank terminated the employment of Benabaye and Tupag and filed a criminal case for Estafa against them. They were charged with defrauding Siam Bank by collecting loan payments but converting and misapplying the amounts for their own benefit.

During trial, Benabaye defended herself by reiterating her written explanation that she remitted the provisional receipts and daily cash transfer slips to Tupag. She also claimed that other bank employees were authorized to issue provisional receipts.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Benabaye and Tupag guilty of Estafa and sentenced them to imprisonment and ordered them to indemnify Siam Bank. Benabaye appealed her conviction to the Court of Appeals (CA), while Tupag's appeal was denied.

The CA affirmed Benabaye's conviction, ruling that all the elements of Estafa through misappropriation were established. It also held that Benabaye and Tupag conspired in committing the offense.

Benabaye filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA, prompting her to file a petition for review on certiorari. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the CA erred in sustaining Benabaye's conviction for Estafa.

ISSUES:

1. • Whether or not Benabaye can be indicted for Estafa due to her possession of the money comprising the loan payments of Siam Bank's clients being considered as merely material, not juridical.
2. • Whether or not the acts described in the Information constitute only one single offense.
3. • Whether or not there was conspiracy between Benabaye and Tupag.

RULING:

1. The Court affirmed Benabaye's conviction for the crime of Estafa through misappropriation. It held that Benabaye, together with Tupag, held the money collected in trust for Siam Bank. The Court also ruled that Benabaye's possession of the money cannot be considered as merely material, as it involved the duty to make delivery or to return the money. The Court further held that the acts described in the Information constituted a single offense and that conspiracy between Benabaye and Tupag was sufficiently established.

PRINCIPLES:

• Elements of Estafa through misappropriation: (a) receipt of money or property in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same; (b) misappropriation or conversion of the money or property received or denial of receipt; (c) to the prejudice of another; and (d) demand made by the offended party on the offender.

• Possession of money or property can be considered juridical, and not merely material, when it involves the duty to make delivery or to return the money or property.

• Conspiracy is sufficiently established when there is evidence proving the unity of purpose and intention among the accused to commit the crime.