Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    Case Law

    Uploaded by

    Missy VRB
    1) Guzman claims he committed estafa, not theft, based on the facts. Estafa and theft are different crimes. 2) As an agent, Guzman had possession and a right to retain proceeds from wine sales until his agency ended. Misappropriating these proceeds constitutes estafa under the law. 3) The information charged Guzman with theft, not estafa, so the facts did not support a conviction for estafa as defined by law. Guzman is acquitted of theft but can be charged with estafa.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Law

    Uploaded by

    Missy VRB
    13 views2 pages
    1) Guzman claims he committed estafa, not theft, based on the facts. Estafa and theft are different crimes. 2) As an agent, Guzman had possession and a right to retain proceeds from wine sales until his agency ended. Misappropriating these proceeds constitutes estafa under the law. 3) The information charged Guzman with theft, not estafa, so the facts did not support a conviction for estafa as defined by law. Guzman is acquitted of theft but can be charged with estafa.

    Original Description:

    Case Law PH

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Guzman claims he committed estafa, not theft, based on the facts. Estafa and theft are different crimes. 2) As an agent, Guzman had possession and a right to retain proceeds from wine sales until his agency ended. Misappropriating these proceeds constitutes estafa under the law. 3) The information charged Guzman with theft, not estafa, so the facts did not support a conviction for estafa as defined by law. Guzman is acquitted of theft but can be charged with estafa.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    13 views2 pages

    Case Law

    Uploaded by

    Missy VRB
    1) Guzman claims he committed estafa, not theft, based on the facts. Estafa and theft are different crimes. 2) As an agent, Guzman had possession and a right to retain proceeds from wine sales until his agency ended. Misappropriating these proceeds constitutes estafa under the law. 3) The information charged Guzman with theft, not estafa, so the facts did not support a conviction for estafa as defined by law. Guzman is acquitted of theft but can be charged with estafa.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ant Guzman claims, first, that under the above findings of fact, he had committed only the crime of

    estafa; and second, as the crimes of estafa and theft are essentially different offenses, he should be
    chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

    acquitted of the present charge for qualified theft, although proceedings may be filed anew against him
    for the proper offense.
    We agree with Appellant that under the above facts, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that he had
    only the material or physical possession of the said merchandise or its proceeds, because he was not the
    owner thereof; he was simply holding the money for and in behalf of his employer.
    chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

    While it is true that Appellant received the proceeds of his wine sales as travelling salesman for the
    complainant, for and in behalf of the latter as his principal, and that possession of the agent is possession
    of the principal, an agent, unlike a servant or messenger, has both the physical and juridical possession of
    the goods received in agency, or the proceeds thereof, which takes the place of the goods after their sale
    by the agent. His duty to turn over the proceeds of the agency depends upon his discharge, as well as the
    result of the accounting between him and the principal; and he may set up his right of possession as chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

    against that of the principal until the agency is terminated.


    The case cited by the Court of Appeals (People vs. Locson, 57 Phil., 325), in support of its theory
    that Appellant only had the material possession of the merchandise he was selling for his principal, or
    their proceeds, is not in point. In said case, the receiving teller of a bank who misappropriated money
    received by him for the bank, was held guilty of qualified theft on the theory that the possession of the
    teller is the possession of the bank. There is an essential distinction between the possession by a receiving
    teller of funds received from third persons paid to the bank, and an agent who receives the proceeds of
    sales of merchandise delivered to him in agency by his principal. In the former case, payment by third
    persons to the teller is payment to the bank itself; the teller is a mere custodian or keeper of the funds chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

    received, and has no independent right or title to retain or possess the same as against the bank. An agent,
    on the other hand, can even assert, as against his own principal, an independent, autonomous, right to
    retain the money or goods received in consequence of the agency; as when the principal fails to chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

    reimburse him for advances he has made, and indemnify him for damages suffered without his fault
    (Article 1915, new Civil Code; Article 1730, old). chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

    As Appellant converted to his own use proceeds of sales of merchandise delivered to him as agent, which
    he received in trust for and under obligation to deliver and turn over to his principal, he is guilty of the
    crime of estafa as defined by Article 315, paragraph 1, subparagraph (c), of the Revised Penal Code. This
    has been the consistent ruling of this Court in cases where a sales agent misappropriates or fails to turn
    over to his principal proceeds of things or goods he was commissioned or authorized to sell for the latter.
    (U. S. vs. Reyes, 36 Phil., 791; U. S. vs. Lim, 36 Phil., 682; People vs. Leachon, 56 Phil., 737).
    chan roblesvirtualawlibrary chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

    The next question is whether the present information for qualified theft alleges sufficient facts to sustain
    a conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1, subparagraph (b), of the Revised Penal Code. The
    information reads: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    The undersigned accuses Joaquin Guzman of the crime of Qualified Theft, defined and penalized under
    Articles 308 and 309, No. 3 in connection with Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
    Commonwealth Acts Nos. 273 and 417 and Republic Act No. 120, committed as follows: . chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    That on or about the 6th day of March, 1953, in the municipality of Aparri, province of Cagayan, and within
    the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused Joaquin Guzman, while in the employ of Enrique
    Go and with grave abuse of confidence did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with
    intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, without the
    consent of the owner Enrique Go alias Ngo Yat, take and carry away for his personal use and benefit the
    sum of eight hundred four pesos and seventy centavos (P804.70) to the damages and prejudice of said
    Enrique Go alias Ngo Yat, in the amount of P804.70. (Original Records p. 22.)
    Article 315, paragraph 1, subparagraph (b), on the other hand, provides: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow
    shall be punished by:chanroble svirtuallawlibrary

    xxx xxx xxx


    (2) With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    xxx xxx xxx


    (b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal
    property 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 such obligation be
    totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, good, or other
    chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

    property;
    Under the above definition of estafa, it is an essential element of the crime that the money or goods
    misappropriated or converted by the accused to the prejudice of another was received by him in trust or
    on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery
    of, or to retain the same. No such allegation appears in the above information. Consequently, we agree
    with Appellant that he cannot be convicted thereunder of the crime of estafa as defined by the article
    above.
    Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed, and Appellant Joaquin Guzman acquitted of the crime
    of qualified theft. Appellant should, however, be held in custody pending the filing of another information
    against him for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1, subparagraph (b), of the Revised Penal Code.
    Without costs in this instance. SO ORDERED.
    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,
    Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.

    Back to Home | Back to Main

    QUICK SEARCH

    1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908


    1909 1910 1911 1912 1

    You might also like