People v. Jockers
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, E. S. Jockers, was employed by Weingarten Brothers to sell jewelry and other articles on commission. On February 16, 1906, he represented he had an opportunity to sell to two Turks at the Waldorf Hotel and was entrusted with goods valued at P267.18. He was obligated to render an account the following day, return the goods, or remit the proceeds less his commission. Procedural History: The accused failed to return as agreed and left Manila with the goods. He was arrested on February 24, 1906, at the instance of his employers. He sold P37.77 worth of goods and failed to account for them. The rest of the goods were recovered. The Appeal: The accused appealed his conviction for estafa of all the goods entrusted to him. The prosecution charged him with estafa of all the goods. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence to determine if the elements of estafa were present for all the goods or only for the portion sold and unaccounted for.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused committed estafa with respect to all the goods entrusted to him on commission. Whether the accused committed estafa with respect to the goods sold and for which he failed to render an accounting.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction for estafa of all the goods. It found the accused guilty of estafa only for the goods sold (valued at P37.77) for which he failed to make an accounting. He was sentenced to three months' arresto mayor, to return the value of the goods, or suffer subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay costs. The conviction under Article 541 of the Penal Code was reversed, and the conviction was based on Article 535, paragraph 5.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the charge of estafa could not be maintained for the goods that were unsold and returned to the owners. The evidence suggested that the accused took the goods outside Manila to seek better peddling opportunities, not with the intention to appropriate them. While his failure to return and departure from the city without permission might raise a presumption of intent to abscond, his conduct during his absence was inconsistent with such an intention. Therefore, it affirmatively appeared that he at no time entertained a plan to make away with all the goods entrusted to him. On Issue 2: The Court found the accused guilty of estafa concerning the goods sold for P37.77, for which he failed to make an accounting. These goods were received on commission with the obligation to return them or the money received therefor, less commission. His failure to fulfill this obligation brought him precisely within the provisions of paragraph 5, Article 535 of the Penal Code. The trial court's conviction under Article 541 was deemed incorrect because the facts constituted a crime defined under a more specific article (Article 535). The penalty imposed was based on paragraph 1 of Article 534, considering the value of the goods unaccounted for did not entitle the accused to a reduction of penalty under Article 93 of the Provisional Law, as the value exceeded 100 pesetas.
Main Doctrine
The crime of estafa under Article 535, paragraph 5 of the Penal Code is committed when property is received on commission with the obligation to return it or account for the proceeds of its sale, and the offender fails to do so. However, to sustain a conviction for estafa, there must be proof of intent to appropriate the goods or the proceeds thereof. If the goods are returned and there is no evidence of intent to permanently deprive the owner, the charge of estafa as to those goods may not prosper, though failure to account for sold items can still constitute estafa.