SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243275. January 14, 2019.]
MA. LOURDES R. GRUTAS, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated14 January 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243275 (Ma. Lourdes R. Grutas v. People of the Philippines)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the April 24, 2018 Decision 2 and the November 16, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39866 for failure of petitioner Ma. Lourdes R. Grutas (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding her conviction for the crime of Estafa through Misappropriation, defined and penalized under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, she is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and six (6) months of prision correccional, as maximum, and to pay the total amount of P269,155.24 as actual damages to MAA General Assurance Philippines, Inc. (MAAGAP), subject to legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of judgment until full payment.
As correctly ruled by the CA, there is a confluence of all the elements 4 of the crime charged, i.e., (a) 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, even though the obligation is guaranteed by a bond; 5 (b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the person who received it, or a denial on his part that he received it; 6 (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; 7 and (d) that there be a demand for the return of the property. 8 As agent, petitioner received the premium payments for the insurance policies taken by the Servants of the Holy Spirit, which premium payments she had the obligation to remit to MAAGAP. Notwithstanding demand, however, she failed to do so, to the damage and prejudice of MAAGAP. As such, the CA was justified in affirming her conviction.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-40.
2.Id. at 169-183. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo with Associate Justices Henri Jean Paul B. Inting and Pablito A. Perez, concurring.
3.Id. at 200-201.
4. See id. at 177.
5. See id. at 177-178.
6. See id. at 177-180.
7. See id. at 180.
8. See id. at 180-181. See also Balerta v. People, 748 Phil. 806, 815 (2014).