People v. Leaño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 1, 1904, Maria Gonzalez and Marcelo Leaño obtained a gold ring valued at 750 pesos from Juana Licauco under the obligation to sell it on commission to the daughter of the governor of Rizal. They agreed to return the ring within a week or pay its value if sold, and not to sell it if they could not realize more than the fixed price. The defendants failed to return the ring or account for it. Maria Gonzalez repeatedly gave excuses when Juana Licauco inquired about the ring. Later, Juana Licauco discovered that Marcelo Leaño had pledged the ring for 180 pesos on August 8, 1904. The ring was redeemed by Leaño's agent on October 7, 1904. Procedural History: The defendants were charged with estafa. The trial court convicted Maria Gonzalez as principal and sentenced her to five months' imprisonment (arresto mayor). Marcelo Leaño was fined 1,000 pesetas or subsidiary imprisonment in default thereof. Both were ordered to pay costs. The defendants appealed. The Petition: The defendants appealed the judgment and sentence of the trial court.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendants are guilty of the crime of estafa. Whether the acknowledgment of debt and promise to pay civilly constituted a novation of the original contract, extinguishing criminal liability.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, modified to impose the penalty of five months' imprisonment (arresto mayor) on both defendants, with the accessories provided in article 61 of the Penal Code, and each to pay one-half of the costs of both instances. As the ring was recovered by the owner, no provision was made for indemnification.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the defendants are guilty of the crime of estafa: The Court held that the facts established constituted the crime of estafa. The defendants received the ring on the condition of selling it on commission and returning it within a week or paying its value. Instead, they appropriated and converted the ring to their own use by pledging it with a pawnbroker. This demonstrated deceit employed to defraud and injury occasioned, the two essential elements of estafa. The Court found that the defendants acted in bad faith and with fraudulent intent from the beginning, using the agreement to sell on commission as a mere pretext to obtain the ring. Marcelo Leaño was deemed a principal for his participation, including his presence, silence, and subsequent pledging of the ring. On whether the acknowledgment of debt and promise to pay civilly constituted a novation of the original contract, extinguishing criminal liability: The Court ruled that the document executed by the defendants acknowledging indebtedness for the value of the ring and promising to pay in installments did not constitute a novation of the original contract. The Court stated that an agreement or guarantee of civil liability does not affect criminal liability to the extent of destroying the existence of the crime. Citing established jurisprudence and Article 1813 of the Civil Code, the Court emphasized that while a civil action arising from a crime may be compromised, the public action for the imposition of the legal penalty is not extinguished because the punishment of every crime is a matter of social and public interest, even if the offended party has been fully indemnified.
Main Doctrine
The appropriation, misapplication, or conversion of property received under an obligation to sell on commission, by pledging it, constitutes estafa, as the essential elements of deceit and injury are present. An acknowledgment of debt and promise to pay civilly does not novate the criminal liability.