G.R. No. 36112 - MARCH 1932 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 36112March 31, 1932 People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Leachon G.R. No. 36083March 31, 1932 People of the Philippines vs. Roman Damiao G.R. No. 35988March 31, 1932 People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo Pañgan, et al. G.R. No. 35963March 31, 1932 People of the Philippines vs. Roman Capa G.R. No. 35867March 31, 1932 People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Rosil G.R. No. 35504March 31, 1932 Chartered Bank of India, et al. vs. Dionisio Constantino, et al. G.R. No. 34581March 31, 1932 In re: Lazaro Mota, et al. vs. Venancio Concepcion, et al. G.R. No. 34533March 31, 1932 Tan Tua Sia, et al. vs. Yu Biao Sontua, et al. G.R. No. 36928March 30, 1932 Tomas Dizon vs. Juan Cailles YeagerMarch 28, 1932 In re: James F. Yeager G.R. No. 37108March 28, 1932 Antonio Directo vs. Director of Prisons G.R. No. 35753March 26, 1932 People of the Philippines vs. Fernando Pineda G.R. No. 34697March 26, 1932 Jesus Teran vs. Francisca Villanueva, et al. G.R. No. 35866March 23, 1932 People of the Philippines vs. Tambaroso G.R. No. 35756March 23, 1932 People of the Philippines vs. Victorio Gules G.R. No. 35587March 23, 1932 In re: Paul A. Bell. Paul A. Bell vs. Attorney-General G.R. No. 34474March 23, 1932 Policarpo S. Menor vs. Vicente Quitas, et al. G.R. No. 34294March 19, 1932 Maria Luisa Medina, et al. vs. Philippine National Bank G.R. No. 35763March 18, 1932 People of the Philippines vs. Canuto Tuzon G.R. No. 35524March 18, 1932 People of the Philippines vs. Julian Sumicad G.R. No. 35469March 17, 1932 E.S. Lyons vs. C.W. Rosenstock G.R. No. 34895March 15, 1932 Testate Estate: Fruto Santos. Macario Sulit vs. Fausta Santos, et al. G.R. No. 36080March 14, 1932 Chang Ka Hee vs. Insular Collector of Customs G.R. No. 34727March 9, 1932 Pacific Commercial Company vs. Ermita Market & Cold Stores, Inc. G.R. No. 39671March 8, 1932 In re: Gabina Medina. Alejandro Samia vs. Irene Medina, et al. G.R. No. 34696March 8, 1932 Antonio D. Mauri vs. San Agustin Plantation Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. 34655March 5, 1932 Siy Cong Bieng & Co.,Inc. vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation G.R. No. 34618March 5, 1932 Antonia Ferrer vs. Jose S. Lopez, et al. G.R. No. 35442March 4, 1932 People of the Philippines vs. Floro Tumayao, et al. G.R. No. 34845March 3, 1932 Anastacio Pineda vs. Margarita Santos, et al. G.R. No. 34021March 3, 1932 Ricardo P. Pardo vs. Municipality of Guinobatan The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Leachon People of the Philippines vs. Roman Damiao People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo Pañgan, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Roman Capa People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Rosil Chartered Bank of India, et al. vs. Dionisio Constantino, et al. In re: Lazaro Mota, et al. vs. Venancio Concepcion, et al. Tan Tua Sia, et al. vs. Yu Biao Sontua, et al. Tomas Dizon vs. Juan Cailles In re: James F. Yeager Antonio Directo vs. Director of Prisons People of the Philippines vs. Fernando Pineda Jesus Teran vs. Francisca Villanueva, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Tambaroso People of the Philippines vs. Victorio Gules In re: Paul A. Bell. Paul A. Bell vs. Attorney-General Policarpo S. Menor vs. Vicente Quitas, et al. Maria Luisa Medina, et al. vs. Philippine National Bank People of the Philippines vs. Canuto Tuzon People of the Philippines vs. Julian Sumicad E.S. Lyons vs. C.W. Rosenstock Testate Estate: Fruto Santos. Macario Sulit vs. Fausta Santos, et al. Chang Ka Hee vs. Insular Collector of Customs Pacific Commercial Company vs. Ermita Market & Cold Stores, Inc. In re: Gabina Medina. Alejandro Samia vs. Irene Medina, et al. Antonio D. Mauri vs. San Agustin Plantation Co., Inc., et al. Siy Cong Bieng & Co.,Inc. vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Antonia Ferrer vs. Jose S. Lopez, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Floro Tumayao, et al. Anastacio Pineda vs. Margarita Santos, et al. Ricardo P. Pardo vs. Municipality of Guinobatan The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 36112 March 31, 1932
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ANTONIO LEACHON,defendant-appellant.
The appellant in his own behalf.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.
JOHNSON,J.:
On the 24th day of July, 1929, the defendant was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with the crime ofestafa, alleged to have been committed as follows:
That in, about and during the period from April 22 to July 1, 1929, in the City of Manila, Philippine Islands, the said accused being then an agent of the Manila Publishing Co., a business concern duly organized and doing business in said city, and authorized as such agent to collect and receive from the different debtors and customers of said company whatever sums of money that might be due and owing the said company, under the express obligation on the part of said accused to account for, turn over and deliver to said Manila Publishing Co. at its offices in said City of Manila all the sums so collected and received by him, and having as such agents collected and received from certain customers and debtors of said company various sums of money amounting to P566.57, which he was, as above stated, under the express obligation to account for, turn over and deliver to said Manila Publishing Co., did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously fail and neglect to comply with his aforementioned obligation notwithstanding repeated demands made upon him to that effect and misappropriate, misapply, and convert the said sum of P566.57, to his own use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said Manila Publishing Co. in the aforementioned sum, equivalent to 2,831.85pesetas.
Upon arraignment the defendant pleaded not guilty, was tried, found guilty of the crime charged and sentenced by J. C. Vickers, judge, to suffer four months and one day ofarresto mayor, to indemnify the Manila Publishing Co. in the sum of P566.57, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
From that sentence the defendant appealed, and now makes the following assignments of error:
1. The court erred in not considering that the liability of the defendant-appellant to the offended party is in the nature of civil responsibility or civil obligation only and not criminal.
2. The court erred in not acquitting the accused of the crime charged in the information.
The facts of this case are not disputed. They are simple and may be stated briefly as follows: The appellant was a salesman of the Manila Publishing Co., the offended party. For the faithful performance of his duties as such agent, the appellant executed in favor of said company a bond or mortgage (Exhibit 4) "to secure the payment or reimbursement of any and all debts, damages, advances, costs and expenses, etc." During the course of his employment as such agent, he collected for said company the sum of P566.57, which it was his duty to turn over and deliver to his principal. Instead of doing so, however, he misappropriated and converted said amount to his own use.
The facts above stated show that the appellant committed a breach of trust, to the damage and prejudice of the Manila Publishing Co., his principal, in violation of article 535, No. 5, of the Penal Code.
The only contention of the appellant is that the bond or mortgage (Exhibit 4) executed by him in favor of the Manila Publishing Company has the effect of exempting him from criminal liability and makes him only civilly liable. This contention is untenable. In our opinion said mortgage or bond guarantees his civil liability only, but does not exempt him from criminal responsibility arising from the misappropriation or conversion of the money or property belonging to this principal. That is the doctrine enunciated by this court in the case of People vs. Yu Chai Ho (53 Phil., 874). Said the court:
The fact that the defendant gave surety for the fulfillment of his obligations under the trust receipt, is of no consequence and does not alter the case. In the case of Unites States vs. Tabotabo (11 Phil., 372), the court said: "Assuming that the surety company had in fact paid the sum misappropriated, this payment by the bonding company, made by virtue of its obligation to guarantee the liability of their client, does not exempt the latter from the punishment provided for. . . ."
In the case of Canal-Commercial Trust & Savings Bank vs. N. O. Tex. & Mex. Ry. Co., Appt., International Trading & Rice Company, Warrantor, Appt. (49 A. L. R., 274), it was held that the bank could recover from the appellants, including the warrantor, the value of the sugar, the bill of lading for which had been delivered upon trust receipt. In that case the court said: "The improper use of pledged securities, by the pledgor holding them under a trust receipt, is a species of embezzlement."
In the case ofPeople vs. De Law(80 Cal., 52), the defendant, an assignee for the benefit of creditors, was convicted of embezzlement of funds which came into his possession by virtue of collections of accounts and sales of property of the assignor. The court said: "The fact that Nunan and Lowney took a written indemnity from the defendant in no way affects the guilty or innocence of the defendant, who is charged with embezzling the property instrusted to him for certain purpose by Mrs. Furlong."
The fact that a defendant has given an indemnity bond is no defense to a prosecution for embezzlement. (20 C. J., 456.)
In the case ofPeople vs. Go Huat(G. R. No. 34436, Oct. 17, 1931)1it was also held that a surety bond filed by an agent does not relieve him from criminal liability, for this undertaking only referred to his civil liability.
The present case differs from that of Aquino (in People vs. Aquino, 52 Phil., 37), who was acquitted of the charge ofestafa, in that Aquino had been expressly authorized by Salmon, General Agent of the Insular Life Assurance, Ltd. to deduct his commission from the collections he made in the capacity of subagent; whereas, in this case it appears that the Manila Publishing Co., to enable the defendant to pay for his living and transportation expenses, advanced to him the sum of P75 twice a month against his commissions, which arrangements indicates that he was not to make any deductions from his collections.
Moreover, in the case of Aquino even before the information was filed there was already pending in the Court of First Instance of Manila a civil case over the liquidation of accounts between Aquino and Salmon. Not so in this case.
The bond filed by Aquino was for the purpose of insuring the fulfillment of his obligations toward Salmon; in other word, that bond would answer for any amounts from his collections which he might fail to turn in to Salmon. The defendant in the instant case filed a bond to guarantee his civil liability.
In Aquino's case the Attorney-General was of the opinion that the act committed by the defendant did not constitute the crime ofestafaand recommended the revocation of the decision appealed from, on the ground that, the defendant having filed a bond to answer for the amounts he might collect and not account for, the relation between him and Salmon became one of creditor and debtor. Here, the Attorney-General contends that the crime committed wasestafa, under article 535, subdivision 5, of the Penal Code, and penalized in article 534, subdivision 2, as amended by Act No. 3244.
Apparently a casual reading of some of the decisions of this court would indicated that there is a conflict between some of them and the conclusions in this case. We are of the opinion that whatever conflicts may be noted, they may be harmonized by a careful reading of each of said decisions. Whatever conflict may be discovered, if any, has been clarified by article 315, paragraph (b) of the New Penal Code, which provides that the giving of a bond to guarantee the defendant's obligation shall not relieve him from criminal liability.
In view of all of the foregoing, we are clearly of the opinion that the defendant is guilty ofestafa, and the sentenced appealed from should be and is hereby affirmed, with the only modifications that the accessory penalties of the law are also imposed upon the appellant. With costs. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Romualdez, Villa-Real and Imperial, JJ., concur.