You are on page 1of 5

U.S. v. SEVILLA [43 Phil.

190 (1922)] the breach of confidence involved in the conversion or diversion of trust
 Defendant Appellant Angel R. Sevilla is charged with & convicted of the funds takes the place of fraudulent intent and is in itself sufficient.
crime of estafa under par. 5, art. 535, RPC. He was the treasurer and  Reason for this: Grave as the offense is, comparatively few men
responsible financial officer of the Manila Railroad Company. His duties misappropriate trust funds with the intention of defrauding the owner; in
were defined in sec. 6 of art. IV of the By-laws of the corporation most cases the offender hopes to be able to restore the funds before the
 1 of the subordinates of the treasurer was denominated cashier & was a defalcation is discovered.
bonded employee, having charge of the cash and the disbursements under  The Court found all of the necessary elements of estafa under par. 5,
the immediate direction of the treasurer. supra, present in instant case. That the money for which the appellant's
 On 3 different occasions in June, appellant took, through his subordinate, checks were substituted was received by him for safe-keeping or
the cashier, P8,330, then P1,670 & lastly P2K out of the funds of the administration, or both, can hardly be disputed. He was the responsible
Railroad Company, giving in return therefor his personal check for the same financial officer of the corporation and as such had immediate control of
amount, drawn on the PNB. In all instances he directed the cashier to hold the current funds for the purposes of safe-keeping and was charged with
the checks & not to deposit them on the current bank account of the the custody of the same. That he, in the exercise of such control and
Railroad Company until the end of the month. It is admitted that he used the custody, was aided by subordinates cannot alter the case nor can the fact
money for his personal or private purposes, though the exact character of that one of the subordinates, the cashier, was a bonded employee who, if
the investments made has apparently not been truthfully disclosed. he had acted on his own responsibility, might also have misappropriated
 When the Insular Auditor conducted an examination of its accounts, the the same funds and thus have become guilty of estafa.
appellant's checks were discovered and it was found that they were carried  Neither can there by any doubt that, in taking money for his personal use,
in the accounts as part of the cash on hand. Appellant could not be found from the funds entrusted to him for safe-keeping and substituting his
until in the afternoon of the same day when it appeared that he had personal checks therefor with instructions that the checks were to be
deposited on his current account with the National Bank the sum of P12K, retained by the cashier for a certain period, the appellant misappropriated
the total amount of the checks. and diverted the funds for that period.
 But it is argued in the present case that it was not the intention of the
WON Sevilla was guilty of estafa accused to permanently misappropriate the funds to himself. However,
 YES. The court will concede that he was a man of good character, such intention is not a necessary element of the crime. The statute clear
reputation, and social position; that he possessed ample means and that & makes no distinction between permanent misappropriations and
his official record up to the time of the events hereinafter related was temporary ones.
unblemished and exceedingly creditable to him.  The third element of the crime with which the appellant is charged is
 Art. 535, RPC. The penalties prescribed by the next preceding article injury to another. The appellant's counsel argues that the only injury in
shall be imposed upon: this case is the loss of interest suffered by the Railroad Company during
xxx xxx xxx the period the funds were withheld by the appellant. It is, however, well
5. Any persons who, to the prejudice ( perjuicio) of another, shall settled by former adjudications of this court that the disturbance in
convert or misappropriate any money, goods, or other personal property property rights caused by the misappropriation, though only temporary, is
received by such person for safe keeping, or on commission, or for in itself sufficient to constitute injury within the meaning of par. 5, supra.
administration, or under any other circumstances giving rise to the (U. S. vs. Goyenechea, 8 Phil., 117; U.S. vs. Malong, 36 Phil., 821.)
obligation to make delivery of or to return the same, or shall deny having
received such money, goods, or other property. Holding: Judgment affirmed.
 3 essential elements in the offense here defined:
(a) Money, goods, or other personal property received for safe-keeping
or on commission or for administration or for any other purpose
giving rise to the obligation to make delivery, or to return, the same;
(b) conversion or diversion of such money or property by the person who
has so received it, or denial on his part of such receipt; and
(c) that such conversion, diversion or denial is the injury of another.
 Fraudulent intent in committing the conversion or diversion is very
evidently not a necessary element of the form of estafa here discussed;
UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee vs. EUSEBIO CLARIN, defendant-
appellant [1910]
 Pedro Larin delivered P172.00 to Pedro Tarug in order that the latter
w/Clarin & Carlos de Guzman might buy & sell mangoes. He entered into
an agreement w/these 3 men believing that he will make some money out
of the business. They agreed to divide the profit equally between him & the
 The business earned P203.00 however, the 3 did not give Larin his share.
There was no accounting of the capital either.
 Larin charged the 3 w/estafa but fiscal only filed a case vs Clarin for
appropriating to himself P172.00 plus Larin’s share of P15.50.
 Trial court: Clarin convicted w/estafa & ordered to return P172.00 to Larin
along w/latter’s share of the profits amounting to P30.50.

Issues & Ratio:
1. WON Clarin alone ought to return Larin’s investment & profit share. –
 Partnership: contract formed when 2 or more persons bind themselves to
contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund w/the intention of
dividing the profits among themselves.
 Larin invested his money in the risks/benefits of the business of buying &
selling mangoes. Even if the capital was reserved & only the usufruct was
conveyed, the responsibility to return the capital to him would devolve upon
the partnership & not on one of his 3 partners. In fact, if one of the 3 should
be responsible, it would be Tarug for he received the money from Larin.

2. WON Larin’s remedy in case he wants to recover the money he
invested is estafa (a criminal action). – NO.
 His remedy would be a civil one arising from the partnership contract for a
liquidation of the partnership & a levy on its assets, if any.
 Estafa (Penal Code Art. 535 no. 5): anyone who to the prejudice of another,
shall appropriate/misapply any money, goods or any kind of personal
property w/c they may have received as a deposit on commission for
administration or in any other character producing the obligation to
deliver/return the same. It does not include money received for a
partnership, otherwise if the partnership suffered losses, it (partnership)
would be liable for estafa for w/c it would be sufficient to argue that the
partnership had received the money under obligation to return it.

Holding: Clarin acquitted. Estafa case dismissed w/o prejudice to the institution
of a proper civil action.
EVANGELISTA v. PEOPLE [227 SCRA 144 (1993)] played with Mining and thus complainant's testimony should not be given
 Complainant Virgilio Mercado was introduced to petitioner Jeng Evangelista credence by the Court.
by the latter's co-worker, Ben Magalong. During said meeting, complainant  NO. Under Art. 315, par. 3(b), RPC, estafa is committed by any person who
& Magalong talked about the casino & petitioner told them that he has a shall defraud another by resorting to some practice to insure success in a
friend who frequents the casino. Thereafter, complainant asked petitioner to gambling game.
introduce him to his friend & the latter agreed.  Evidence for prosecution proved that complainant was deceived into parting
 One time, complainant met petitioner who told him to accompany him to the with his money on petitioner's assurance that he would win in the card
casino at the Phil. Village Hotel & they boarded a taxi w/ Raffy Juta. Before game by using the pre-arranged signals and tricks taught to him. While it is
proceeding to the casino, petitioner suggested that they go to his friend, true that complainant consented to petitioner's scheme to defraud Minong,
Chito Areola’s house first as they would teach him how to gamble & win in fact remains that it was complainant who ended up being cheated by
the casino. Petitioner, together with Rey Santos & Areola taught petitioner and his friends since the latter helped one another to victimize
complainant the rudiments of the games of blackjack & baccarat as well as complainant and to divest him of all his money.
how to cheat by using certain tricks and signals.  All the essential elements of estafa are present in instant case. Thus, party
 Thereafter, petitioner & his friends informed complainant that before responsible for such fraud or damage, cannot escape criminal responsibility
proceeding to the casino, he’ll play against a rich man from Bacolod named even though the offended party consented to participate in the illegal or
Minong w/ Areola acting as the dealer & requested complainant to deposit amoral transaction.
his money to them. He deposited P10K and U.S.$350 or a total of P17K  Fact that complainant was lured by petitioner in a fraudulent card game
were replaced w/ plastic chips, to petitioner & his friends on their can’t serve as a ground for discrediting complainant's testimony, rather his
assurances that he will win in the card game by using the pre-arranged inveiglement to participate in the fraudulent card game was part of the
signals & tricks taught to him. scheme to defraud him
 AT first, complainant was winning as petitioner & his friends were employing
the tricks & signals they taught him. But he started losing when petitioner et. Holding: Petition for review on certiorari, DENIED for lack of merit.
al stopped giving him the pre-arranged signals. With a few remaining chips
left from his winnings worth P20,000.00, complainant decided to stop
playing for fear of losing his capital but petitioner and his friends refused &,
instead, stared menacingly at him.
 Thereafter, complainant asked them to return his money w/c he had earlier
deposited but they told him he had lost all his money in the card game. As
soon as complainant realized that he was being cheated, he asked
permission to leave with Raffy Juta & was allowed after he had executed a
letter, the content of w/c he can’t remember since it was only dictated to him
by Santos.
 Petitioner was arrested at the Phil. Banking Corp. by policemen who
accompanied complainant. Corporal Rogelio Castillo testified during the trial
that when he investigated petitioner, the latter verbally admitted his guilt to
 Petitioner denied participating in the alleged deceitful and fraudulent card
game and maintained that he saw them play "Black Jack" while he only
watched the game and that when he lost, Mr. Mercado still wanted to play,
but had no more money, so, they set another date for them to play. In fact,
Mr. Mercado prepared a letter to his playmates asking them to play again.
 RTC convicted him for estafa. CA affirmed RTC decision
 Petitioner now contends that he should be acquitted on the ground that his
guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

WON, by consenting to petitioner's fraudulent scheme of cheating Minong,
complainant was a willing party and conspirator in the card game he
ILAGAN VS. CA despite their duty to do so. The felony was consummated on
the dates when and at the places where such amounts were
Facts: to be delivered to corporation under the agency agreement
♦ July 21, 1992 – eight informations were filed in the Regional Trial Court therefor or within a reasonable time from receipt of the
charging Geruncio H. Ilagan, Claro Piñon and Rosendo Piñon as co- payments made by the lot buyers.
conspirators in the crime of estafa. o Lot buyers - committed by deceit or false pretenses employed
♦ July 30, 1992 – petitioners moved to quash the informations in Criminal prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.
Paragraph 2(a): by the accused falsely pretending to possess
Cases Nos. C-40483 to C-40489 on the ground of duplicity of offenses the power to collect the payments due from said buyers,
charged therein.  dismissed by the RTC despite the peculiar but specific prohibition imposed by their
♦ They appealed the CA but it held that the petitions are without merit. said principal. The felony was perpetrated through the
An information is considered duplicitous and therefore subject to aforesaid the deceitful offense was consummated upon
dismissal if it charges more than one offense except in cases in which receipt by the accused of the amounts in the different
a single punishment is prescribed for various offenses. In this case, misrepresentations which made possible the unauthorized
each information charges only one offense of estafa and, therefore, collections. The occasions and places where the payments
there is no basis for moving to quash on the ground of duplicity of were made by the lot buyers. The aggrieved parties were the
offense. lot buyers who individually and separately suffered damages
♦ Petitioners contend that despite the number of aggrieved parties, they by being deprived not only of their money but primarily of their
committed only one offense of estafa, and solely against respondent property rights to and in the lots they respectively purchased.
corporation which is now the subject of Criminal Case No. C-40482. o The offense of estafa against the corporation can be
They would postulate that into said case should be deemed integrated considered discretely and separately from those committed
the separate offenses complained of by the seven individual lot buyers, against the lot buyers since different modes of commission
instead of the latter being made the respective subjects of Criminal and different parties are concerned.
Cases Nos. C-40483 to C-40489. Their thesis would be that since the o Estafa through abuse of confidence – prior demand should be
informations also state that petitioners had defrauded respondent made by the offended party on the accused to comply with the
corporation, the allegations in the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. obligation before the latter can be charged criminally.
C-40483 to C-40489 that the acts of petitioners caused damage and o Estafa throught deceit – no need for prior demand.
prejudice to the individual complainants mentioned therein should be o Damage sustained by the lot buyers is distinct from that
treated as superfluities suffered by the corporation since, primarily, the injury to the lot
buyers was the deprivation of their rights or the exercise
thereof over the properties they respectively purchased.
Issue: WON the offenses separately charged in the eight informations actually RULE: actual damage is not necessary in estafa, as long as it
constitute only one offense or were correctly considered as eight separate is capable of pecuniary estimation, hence mere temporary
crimes of estafa? EIGHT SEPARATE OFFENSE disturbance of property rights is equivalent to damage. Even if
the prejudice is temporary, that would suffice for the element
Ratio: of damage in estafa. The lot buyers as a direct consequence
of the acts of petitioners has been deprived of the exercise of
♦ The crime of estafa committed against the corporation, those their rights of actual or potential ownership over their
committed against the lot buyers are definitely separate felonies. They ♦ The series of acts committed against the seven lot buyers was not the
were dictated by different criminal intents, committed under different product of a single criminal intent. The misrepresentation or deceit was
modes of commission provided by the law on estafa, perpetrated by employed against each lot buyer on different dates and in separate
different acts, consummated on different occasions, and caused injury places, hence they originated from separate criminal intents and
to different parties. consequently resulted in separate felonies. In addition, the
defraudations were committed over a period of about one and a half
o Against the corporation – committed through unfaithfulness or years and at substantial intervals both in time and in distance of situs.
abuse of confidence. Operative act  failure to turn over or
deliver to respondent corporation the amount collected
o The person who makes or draws and issues the check knows
LAO VS. COURT OF APPEALS at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in
Facts: full upon its presentment
♦ Lina Lim Lao was a junior officer of Premiere Investment House in its o The check is subsequently dishonoured by the drawee bank
Binondo Branch. She was authorized to sign checks for and in behalf for insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been
of the corporation. dishonoured for the same reason had not the drawer, without
♦ Father Palijo invested P514,484.04 and for the payment of interest valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment
three checks were issued. All of the checks were signed by Lao and ♦ Lack of actual knowledge of insufficiency of funds
Asprec. o There is a prima facie presumption of the existence of this
♦ The checks were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Upon demand element from the fact of the drawing, issuing or making a
he received 5,000. No other payment followed and as such Palijo check. However, this is not conclusive presumption that
wrote a formal letter of demand and Premiere was placed in forecloses or precludes the presentation of evidence to the
receivership. contrary.
♦ Palijo filed a complaint against Lao and Asprec for violation of BP 22 o Prosecution has a duty to prove all elements of the crime,
♦ Lao contends that: including the acts that give rise to the prima facie
o It was normal procedure for her to sign checks in blank, that presumption. Lao has a right to rebut the prima facie
is, without the names of the payees, the amount and the dates presumption.
of maturity. Mr. Asprec decides to whom the checks were to o If such knowledge of insufficiency of funds is proven to be
be ultimately be issued and delivered. actually absent or non-existent the accused should not be
o She had no knowledge of the actual funds available in the held liable for the offense.
corporate account. o Lao did not have actual knowledge of the insufficiency of the
o She was not involved in the completion and subsequent funds in the corporate accounts at the time that she affixed
delivers of the check. her signature to the checks. Scope of her duties and
o She had no knowledge of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the responsibilities did not encompass the funding of the
funds of the corporate account. It was not within her powers, corporation’s checks; her duties were limited to the marketing
duties or responsibilities to monitor and assess the balances department of the Binondo Branch.
against the issuance; much less was it within her power to
make sure that the checks were funded.
WON constructive knowledge of the corporation but not of the signatory
WON an employee who signs blanks checks without actual knowledge of employee sufficient? NO
sufficiency of funds be held criminally liable for violation of B 22? NO ♦ There can be no prima facie evidence of the knowledge of insufficiency
♦ Elements of the offense penalized by BP 22 of funds because no notice of dishonour was actually sent to or
o The making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply to received by Lao.
account or for value ♦ Sec. 2 provides that this presumption arises not from the mere fact of
o Knowledge of the maker, drawer or issuer that at the time of drawing, making and issuing a bum check; there must also be a
the issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the showing that within 5 banking days from receipt of the notice of
drawee bank for the payment of such check dishonour, such maker or drawer failed to pay the holder of the check
o Subsequent dishonour of the check by the drawee bank for the amount due therein or to make arrangement for its payment in full
by the drawee of such check.
insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonour for the same
reason had not the drawer, without valid cause, ordered the
bank to stop payment.
♦ Elements of the first paragraph of section 1
o A person makes or draws and issues any check
o The check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account
for value