People vs. Benitez (G.R. No.

L-15923, June 30, 1960)

● Doctrine
There constitutes estafa where there is non-compliance to account to the demands held in trust and that
estafa is not affected via notation of a contract nor is it waivable by the offended party.

● Facts
The defendant, Benitez, was hired as a collector of rents by the owner, Cua. Upon collecting two months
worth of rent, Benitez failed to turn over the collected rent payment upon multiple demands from Cua and
the accused failed to show up for work. Benitez was then convicted for estafa and was demanded with the
full payment of the rent.

● Issue
Whether or not the defendant is guilty of estafa

● Ruling
Yes, the defendant is guilty of estafa. According to the Supreme Court, there constitutes estafa when the
accused failed to account the fund held in trust. In this case, provided that the defendant failed to turn
over the rental payment already constitutes estafa. Moreover, irrespective of the novation of the contract,
this does not remove the criminal liability of the defendant as the law imposes punishment for the
commision for the offense.