Ownership of property, not an element of Estafa

Jurisprudence provides for the elements of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1
(b) of the Revised Penal Code which are as follows:
1. That money, goods or other personal properties are 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 is a 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.
1
(emphasis provided)
In relation to the case at hand, it would be proper to understand the phrase
to the prejudice of another. The Supreme Court in several cases provided that the
above phrase should not be taken as prejudice to the owner of the property
misappropriated. In the case of First Producers Holdings Corporation vs. Luis Co 2
citing Hernandez v. Court of Appeals3, states,
xxx Ownership is not a necessary element of the crime of estafa x x x.
In estafa, the person prejudiced or the immediate victim of the fraud
need not be the owner of the goods. Thus, Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code provides that Any person who shall defraud another (it
does not say owner) by any means mentioned is that the loss should
have fallen on someone other than the perpetrators of the crime xxxx
Further, in the case of People v. Yu Chai Ho 4, the Supreme Court depend its
interpretation of the above phrase from a ruling of the Spanish Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court speaking through Justice Ostrand said,
xxx The language of the paragraph is clear and requires no special
construction. As will be seen, the person whose interests are
prejudiced through the conversion or misappropriation of the money,
1 Andre L. D Aigle v. People, G.R. No. 17418, June 27, 2012 citing Cruzvale, Inc. v.
Eduque, G.R. Nos. 172785-86, June 18, 2009
2 G.R. No. 139655. July 27, 2000
3 G.R. No. 104874, December 14, 1993
4 G.R. No. L-29278, October 3, 1928

goods, or other personal property need not necessarily be the owner

thereof; if such had been the intention of the authors of the
Code, the phrase "to the prejudice of another" would have read
"to the prejudice of the owner."
Our opinion is also supported by the Supreme Court of Spain in its
sentence of May 8, 1884, which in principle is exactly in point. The
facts of that case are that one Enrique Mariano handed his watch to his
friend, the accused, keep for him while he, Mariano, was engaged in
certain professional work in a circus. Instead of returning the watch to
its owner, Mariano the accused pawned it in a pawnshop for a loan of
225 pesetas. Mariano recovered the watch from the pawnbroker almost
immediately and without any expense. In that case, as in the present
one, it was argued that as the owner of the watch suffered no loss,
no estafa had been committed. The Spanish Supreme Court held that it
was immaterial whether the loss had been suffered by the owner or by
a third person, and among other things, said:
Considering that in view of the literal terms of the
provision of said article, as well as its spirit and legal
reason, whenever damages are caused as a consequence
of the aforesaid appropriation or taking away, the act
constitutes the crime of estafa, even though the person
who suffered the damage is a third party, and not the on
to whom the misappropriated or converted goods
belongs or to whom it is to be returned, for this is an
incidental element which in no way affects the juridical
nature of the crime.xxxx5
Hence, it is not only the owner of the misappropriated property who can be
considered as the offended party in an Estafa case. An offended party may also be
another person.
WHO ARE PREJUDICED
Understanding that the offended party in a case of estafa need not be the
owner of the partnership, what is next to be established is who are the persons
prejudiced in the case at hand.

5 Emphasis Supplied