G.R. No. L-11923 - NOVEMBER 1916 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-11923November 29, 1916 United States vs. Santiago del Castillo G.R. No. L-11915November 29, 1916 United States vs. Andres Estorico G.R. No. L-10072November 29, 1916 William Abraham Kincaid vs. Cayetano Cabututan, et al. G.R. No. L-12083November 27, 1916 Nemesio Campos vs. Adolph Wislizenus, et al. G.R. No. L-11750November 24, 1916 United States vs. Miguel Catimbang, et al. G.R. No. L-11442November 22, 1916 United States vs. Moros Landasan G.R. No. L-12054November 20, 1916 Isidro Alvendia vs. Percy M. Moir, et al. G.R. No. L-11033November 20, 1916 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Director of Lands, et al. G.R. No. L-11042November 18, 1916 United States vs. Felicisimo Bagsic, et al. G.R. No. L-12190November 17, 1916 Hermenegildo Velasco vs. Judge of the Court of the First Instance of Pangasinan, et al. G.R. No. L-12016November 17, 1916 Jao Quim Cho vs. Collector of Customs of the City of Cebu G.R. No. L-9371November 16, 1916 Franciscan Corporation, Province of Gregorio Magno vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila G.R. No. L-10646November 9, 1916 Pedro Cabigting, et al. vs. Alejandro Samia G.R. No. L-10967November 8, 1916 Insular Government vs. Behn Meyer & Company (Ltd.) G.R. No. L-10620November 8, 1916 Behn Meyer & Company (Ltd.) vs. W. T. Nolting, et al. G.R. No. L-12118November 6, 1916 Catalino Galang vs. Vicente Miranda, et al. G.R. No. L-10432November 4, 1916 Juliah H. del Pilar vs. Manuel Catindig G.R. No. L-11263November 2, 1916 Eloisa Goita dela Camara vs. Jose Campos Rueda G.R. No. L-11049November 2, 1916 United States vs. Manuel Francisco G.R. No. L-10959November 2, 1916 Primitiva Paras vs. Ludovico Narciso G.R. No. L-10802November 2, 1916 Ramon Rey vs. Fermin Morales, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. United States vs. Santiago del Castillo United States vs. Andres Estorico William Abraham Kincaid vs. Cayetano Cabututan, et al. Nemesio Campos vs. Adolph Wislizenus, et al. United States vs. Miguel Catimbang, et al. United States vs. Moros Landasan Isidro Alvendia vs. Percy M. Moir, et al. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Director of Lands, et al. United States vs. Felicisimo Bagsic, et al. Hermenegildo Velasco vs. Judge of the Court of the First Instance of Pangasinan, et al. Jao Quim Cho vs. Collector of Customs of the City of Cebu Franciscan Corporation, Province of Gregorio Magno vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila Pedro Cabigting, et al. vs. Alejandro Samia Insular Government vs. Behn Meyer & Company (Ltd.) Behn Meyer & Company (Ltd.) vs. W. T. Nolting, et al. Catalino Galang vs. Vicente Miranda, et al. Juliah H. del Pilar vs. Manuel Catindig Eloisa Goita dela Camara vs. Jose Campos Rueda United States vs. Manuel Francisco Primitiva Paras vs. Ludovico Narciso Ramon Rey vs. Fermin Morales, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 11923            November 29, 1916

THE UNITED STATES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
SANTIAGO DEL CASTILLO,defendant-appellant.

Francis B. Mahoney for appellant.
Attorney-General Avanceña for appellee.

MORELAND,J.:

The appellant in this case was charged withestafaby obtaining from one Juan Tudas the title deeds of his lands upon the false representation that he was qualified in law to represent him in a civil case in a justice court which was likely to be brought concerning the real estate affected by the title deeds referred to; and upon and by means of these representations, obtained possession of the title deeds and refused to redeliver them on demand of the owner.

There is no doubt in the case that the accused obtained possession of the deeds referred to by false representations and he refused to redeliver them after the owner had found that he had been deceived and had duly demanded their return. The defense offered by the appellant that he lost them we do not think is sustained by the evidence. The trial court found against him in this contention and we are satisfied that the evidence fully supports the finding. The court placed very little confidence in his testimony.

Certain objections are made in this court against the form of the information; but they not having been raised in the court below and the evidence offered by the prosecution having cured those defects, if any, the objections come too late here.

The main contention of the appellant is that no value was placed on the title deeds and that therefore it is impossible to convict the appellant ofestafa, as one of the essential elements of that crime is that the complaining party must have lost something; that is, been damaged in a specified amount.

This is not the rule in this jurisdiction. We have held in several cases that papers of this character have some value; and that if value is not proved on the trial it will be assumed that it was less than 250 pesetas. (U. S.vs.De la Cruz, 12 Phil. Rep., 87; U. S.vs.Abad, 23 Phil. Rep., 504.) Such value brings the case within paragraph 1 of article 534 of the Penal Code which declares that a person who commitsestafawith reference to property the value of which does not exceed 250pesetasshall be punished witharresto mayorin its maximum and medium degrees. Such being the case appellant is in error in his claim that the value of the title deeds not having been proved the case against him fails.lawphil.net

We agree with the appellant that the value of the title deeds cannot be assumed to be the same as the value of the real estate to which they refer. The fact that the complainant lost his title deeds does not mean necessarily that he lost his real estate or that the loss damaged him to the extent of the value of such real estate. This case differs from that where the thing in controversy is a negotiable instrument such a promissory note or check. (U. S.vs.Tan Jenjua, 1 Phil. Rep., 38; U. S.vs.Wickersham, 20 Phil. Rep., 440; U. S.vs.Raboy, 25 Phil. Rep., 1.)

The judgment appealed from is modified and the accused is sentenced to four months of arresto mayor. The rest of the sentence imposed is affirmed, except as to the indemnification, and as to that, it is reversed. So ordered.

Torres, Johnson, Carson, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.