G.R. No. 47804 - NOVEMBER 1941 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 47804November 27, 1941 Juan Castillo vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 48147November 27, 1941 Claro Castro, et al. vs. Rosendo Reyes G.R. No. 47357November 26, 1941 Salvador E. Imperial vs. China Insurance & Surety Company G.R. No. 47775November 26, 1941 People of the Philippines vs. Anastacio Figueroa G.R. No. 47976November 26, 1941 A. P. Seva, et al. vs. Pablo S. Rivera, et al. G.R. No. 48215November 26, 1941 Parsons Hardware Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. 48754November 26, 1941 Emilio V. Reyes vs. Apolonio R. Diaz G.R. No. 47887November 25, 1941 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Carmen de Umali G.R. No. 48125November 25, 1941 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Felix Cabaddu G.R. No. 48126November 25, 1941 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Leon Gonzales G.R. No. 48127November 25, 1941 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Rosendo Balingit G.R. No. 47688November 24, 1941 Basilia Cabrera vs. Philippine Education Co., Inc. G.R. No. 47988November 24, 1941 H. S. Fenwick vs. Joaquin Pardo de Tavera G.R. No. 48641November 24, 1941 Pedro Gallego vs. Vicente Verra G.R. No. 48101November 22, 1941 People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Nabora G.R. No. 48123November 22, 1941 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Anacleto Vineda G.R. No. 48395November 22, 1941 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Alejandro Encarnacion G.R. No. 48554November 22, 1941 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Bilaans S. Suni, et al. G.R. No. 47805November 19, 1941 Concepcion Piñon vs. Consuelo Zafra, et al. G.R. No. 47813November 18, 1941 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Simeon Antonio, et al. G.R. No. 48320November 18, 1941 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Juan Cachero G.R. No. 48459November 18, 1941 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Fidel Fortuno G.R. No. 48456November 12, 1941 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Ngo Chay G.R. No. 48183November 10, 1941 People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo A. Schneckenburger, et al. G.R. No. 48683November 8, 1941 Geronimo Santiago vs. Far Eastern Broadcasting G.R. No. 48306November 7, 1941 Pedro L. Galang vs. P. M. Endencia, et al. G.R. No. 48415November 7, 1941 International Oil Factory vs. National Labor Union, Inc., et al. G.R. No. 48458November 7, 1941 People of the Philippines vs. Fidel Fortuno G.R. No. 48662November 6, 1941 Jesus B. Lava vs. Jose Lopez Vito, et al. G.R. No. 48348November 1, 1941 Aquilino del Rosario vs. Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, et al. G.R. No. 48524November 1, 1941 Manila Hotel Employees Association vs. Manila Hotel Company, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Juan Castillo vs. People of the Philippines Claro Castro, et al. vs. Rosendo Reyes Salvador E. Imperial vs. China Insurance & Surety Company People of the Philippines vs. Anastacio Figueroa A. P. Seva, et al. vs. Pablo S. Rivera, et al. Parsons Hardware Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Emilio V. Reyes vs. Apolonio R. Diaz El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Carmen de Umali El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Felix Cabaddu El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Leon Gonzales El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Rosendo Balingit Basilia Cabrera vs. Philippine Education Co., Inc. H. S. Fenwick vs. Joaquin Pardo de Tavera Pedro Gallego vs. Vicente Verra People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Nabora El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Anacleto Vineda El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Alejandro Encarnacion El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Bilaans S. Suni, et al. Concepcion Piñon vs. Consuelo Zafra, et al. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Simeon Antonio, et al. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Juan Cachero El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Fidel Fortuno El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Ngo Chay People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo A. Schneckenburger, et al. Geronimo Santiago vs. Far Eastern Broadcasting Pedro L. Galang vs. P. M. Endencia, et al. International Oil Factory vs. National Labor Union, Inc., et al. People of the Philippines vs. Fidel Fortuno Jesus B. Lava vs. Jose Lopez Vito, et al. Aquilino del Rosario vs. Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, et al. Manila Hotel Employees Association vs. Manila Hotel Company, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-47804 November 27, 1941
JUAN CASTILLO (aliasJUAN DE CASTILLO),petitioner,
vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,respondent.
ABAD SANTOS,J.:
The petitioner Juan Castillo was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija of the crime of estafa under article 316, par. 6, of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced to 2 months and 1 day ofarresto mayor. This judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The question presented is whether, upon the facts found by the Court of Appeals, the petitioner was guilty of the crime charged against him.
It appears that in the intestate proceedings of the First Instance of Nueva Ecija, the petitioner executed a bond in the sum of P1,000.00 as one of the sureties for the administrator appointed by the court. In order to qualify as such surety, he exhibited Transfer Certificate of Title No. 9683 issued in his name and covering a parcel of land. Before the cancellation of said bond and without judicial authority, he sold the land to Felipe V. Estrella for the sum of P450.00.
Petitioner now contends (1) that as the property sold by him was not specifically pledged in the bond which he signed as surety, he could not rightly be convicted under article 136, par. 6, of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes the sale by a surety of "real property or properties with which guaranteed the fulfillment" of his obligation; and (2) that as there was no finding of actual damage, his conviction for the crime of estafa cannot stand.
1. The first contention is without merit. It was to prove his solvency and thus qualify as a surety that petitioner exhibited Transfer Certificate of Title No. 9683. By such act, he in effect guaranteed with the land described in the certificate of title his obligation as surety, for it was upon the strength of his ownership of such land that the bond executed by him was approved. Good faith on his part, therefore, requires that he should not dispose of the land before the cancellation of the found, without the permission of the court. A contrary view would render the penal sanction of the law in effective.
2. There is no express finding in the judgment under review that the sale made by the petitioner resulted in any actual damage to the estate of the deceased Juan Castillo, as alleged in the information. Indeed, the damage, if any, is merely potential and speculative. Apart from the circumstance that the petitioner might have other properties with which to satisfy any obligation that could attach to him under the bond, there was the probability that the administrator might be held liable. It is well settled that damage is an essential element ofestafa. (U. S.vs.Mendezona, 2 Phil. 353; U. S.vs.Berry, 5 Phil. 370; U. S.vs.Leaño, 6 Phil. 368; U.S.vs.Rivera, 23 Phil. 383.) With particular reference to article 316 of the Revised Penal Code, under which the petitioner was prosecuted, it is noteworthy that the penalty prescribed isarresto mayorin its minimum and medium periodsand a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than three times such value; and such fine is not merely an alternative penalty. It seems clear that the article contemplates the existence of damage as an element of the offense therein penalized. The case of U. S.vs.Goyenechea, 8 Phil. 117, and U. S.vs.Malong, 36 Phil. 821, cited by the prosecution in support of the theory that the disturbance of property rights of the compliant constitutes real and actual damage, are not in point. The properties involved in the those cases belonged to the offended parties, while in the present case there could be no disturbance of the property rights belonging to the estate of the deceased Juan Castillo, because the land sold by the petitioner was his own, because the land sold by the petitioner was his own, and not of the estate.
The judgment under review is reversed, and the petitioner acquitted, with costsde oficio. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Diaz, Moran, and Horilleno, JJ.,concur.