G.R. No.
L-10675 February 28, 1916 put off by mistake at Ibajay is not disputed and is not
THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. YAP
TIAN JONG, Defendant-Appellant.
Alfredo Chicote, Jose Arnaiz and R. del Castillo y
Tirol for appellant.
Attorney-General Avanceña for appellee.
CARSON, J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First
Instance of Capiz convicting the defendant and
appellant of the crime of estafa. The commission of
the crime is charged in the information as follows:
"That on or about the 26th of July, 1914, in the
municipality of Ibajay, Province of Capiz, P. I., a case
containing a number of bolts of sinamay cloth of the
value of P625 was by mistake unloaded from the
steamship Batangueño by reason of its being marked
the same as, or similar to, certain cases consigned to
the defendant (Y. J.) and together with these latter,
was taken to defendant's store; there the accused,
after opening the box and discovering that it contained
bolts of sinamay cloth, maliciously, fraudulently and
criminally, and thereby prejudicing another person,
appropriate to himself the said box and the bolts
of sinamay without the consent of their owner or the
person having charge of the goods, well knowing that
they belonged to another shipper or that they formed
part of the freight of the said steamship Batangueño,
and denied having received the said goods."  or the proper representative of the owner upon
The interisland steamer Batangueño, plying between
Manila and Capiz, received at Manila a shipment of
goods consigned to the accused, Yap Tian Jong, at
Ibajay, Capiz Province. The bill of lading (Exhibit A)
shows that the consignment consisted of 18 packages
or boxes, each of which bore the marks "Y. J.," letters
presumably representing the initials of the accused.
Before reaching Ibajay the Batangueño took aboard at
New Washington, Province of Capiz, a box
of sinamay valued at P625, consigned by Sy Jong
Kuang to another Chinese merchant in Manila (Exhibit
B). This box also bears the marks "Y. J." and through
mistake, possibly due to the similarity to the marks on
defendant's goods, it was put off the vessel at Ibajay,
with the rest of the shipment of goods consigned
there. The mistake was discovered after the boat left
Ibajay and before it reached Romblon, the next port,
and on arriving at Romblon, the captain telegraphed
back to Ibajay with regard to the missing box
of sinamay. When the Batangueño stopped at Ibajay
on her next trip some 10 to 12 days later, the
accused, in response to inquiries of the captain,
denied that he had received the box and declared that
he knew nothing whatever about it.
The contention of the prosecution in the court below
was that this box of sinamay cloth was unloaded by
mistake at Ibajay, together with the goods consigned
to the accused, who took possession of it and
retained it, despite the demands made upon him for
its return by the captain of the ship, into whose care it
had been intrusted by its owner.
If the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution
can be accepted as true, there can be no reasonable
doubt as to the guilt of the accused. That the box was
subject to dispute, and three witnesses who were at
that time engaged in discharging the cargo of
the Batangueño, and one who was in the employ of
the accused, testified positively to the delivery of the
box in question to the accused, together with the other
goods consigned to him on board the Batangueño.
While it appears that two of these witnesses were
taken into the employ of the captain of
the Batangueño since the incident occurred with
reference to which they testified, it does not
necessarily follow, as contended by counsel for the
accused, that all that they said on the witness stand
was false and unworthy of credence. It is true that
they appear to have been "willing" witnesses, and that
their readiness to appear and testify may have
resulted, in part, from the fact that they were at that
time in the employ of the captain of the Batangueño,
but the trial judge, who saw and heard these as well
as all the other witnesses testify, was of the opinion
that, in substance, their testimony was true, and we
find nothing in the record which justifies us in
disturbing his conclusions in this regard. Indeed,
making all allowances for the possible interest that
these witnesses may have had in testifying on behalf
of the captain of the vessel, who himself was
doubtless interested in fixing the responsibility for the
loss of the box of sinamay, we are satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt that it came into the possession of
the accused in the manner and form charged by the
prosecution, and that, notwithstanding the obligation
which rested upon him to return the box to its owner
demand, he refused to do so and denied having
received it, declaring at the same time that he knew
nothing whatever in regard to it.
With regard to the criticisms of counsel for appellant
directed against the finding of the trial judge wherein
he observes that the preponderance of the testimony
is in favor of the prosecution, it is sufficient to say that
while this finding, taken by itself, might seem to
indicate that the judge found the accused guilty upon
a preponderance of the evidence, nevertheless, the
other findings set forth in the opinion clearly disclose
that the trial judge gave no credit whatever to the
testimony of the witnesses for the defense, and
accepted as true beyond a reasonable doubt the
testimony of the witnesses called for the prosecution.
We agree with the trial judge that the evidence clearly
discloses a violation of the express provisions of
subsection 5 of article 535 of the Penal Code, in that,
"to the prejudice of another he converted to his own
use the box of sinamay, received by him under such
circumstances as to give rise to an obligation to return
or make delivery of the same" to the owner upon
demand, and that he "denied having received these
goods." 
We find no merit in the contention that the captain of
the vessel, to whose possession the box
of sinamay was intrusted for transportation to Manila,
could not lawfully file a complaint charging the
defendant with the crime of estafa. The fact that this
box of goods had been intrusted to the possession of
the captain of the Batangueño for transportation was
sufficient in itself to maintain his right to proceed
against the accused, both civilly and criminally, for its
conversion and unlawful detention, after due demand
had been made for its return by the captain, who had
a perfect right t its possession, for the purpose of its
transportation aboard his ship to the original
consignee.c

We find no error in the proceedings prejudicial to the

rights of the accused. The judgment entered in the
court below, convicting and sentencing the appellant,
should, therefore, be affirmed, with the costs of this
instance against him. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Moreland, and

Trent, JJ., concur.