People v. Celis
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Joaquin Celis, employed as a bookkeeper by Findlay & Co., was entrusted with receiving payments for insurance premiums via checks. On January 3, 1906, he received check No. 160708 for P675.36, payable to Findlay & Co., representing a premium for policy No. 4850421. Instead of delivering the check to the firm's cashier, Celis appropriated it. He cashed the check with E.M. Bachrach, using P350 to pay a personal debt and keeping the balance. Bachrach deposited the check, and the amount was credited to his account. Procedural History: The accused was charged with estafa in the Court of First Instance of Manila. He was found guilty and sentenced to five months of arresto mayor, to refund the amount of P675.36 to Findlay & Co., with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay costs. The accused appealed this judgment. The Petition: The accused appealed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, alleging, among other grounds, the nullity of the judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused is guilty of the crime of estafa. Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction over the case.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with a modification in the penalty. Joaquin Celis is sentenced to six months of imprisonment (arresto mayor), to the accessory penalties of article 61 of the Penal Code, and to pay the costs of the instance.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt for estafa: The Court found that Joaquin Celis committed estafa as defined by Article 535, No. 5, and punished under Article 534, No. 2, of the Penal Code. The evidence showed that Celis, as bookkeeper for Findlay & Co., received a check intended for the firm but instead appropriated it for his own use. He converted the check's value to his personal benefit, paying a debt and keeping the remainder, thereby causing damage and prejudice to Findlay & Co. This act constituted a clear breach of the trust reposed in him by the company. The Court noted that Celis did not plead guilty and offered no exculpation, and the facts, including the entry in the books being in his handwriting, conclusively proved his culpability as the sole and direct author of the crime. The Court determined that no extenuating or aggravating circumstances were present, thus imposing the penalty in its medium degree. On the issue of jurisdiction: The Court found no ground for the allegation of nullity of the judgment due to lack of jurisdiction. The complaint and the evidence established that the crime was consummated within the territory of the city of Manila, where the places relevant to the commission of the crime are located. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance to take cognizance of and pass upon the proceedings was beyond question. The Court also cited its previous ruling in Mortiga vs. Serra and Obleno (5 Phil. Rep., 34), affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that objections to a complaint based on insufficient statement of facts constituting the offense will not be considered if not presented to the lower court.
Main Doctrine
The appropriation and conversion to one's own use of a check received in trust, to the damage and prejudice of the owner, constitutes the crime of estafa under Article 535, No. 5, and is punished under Article 534, No. 2, of the Penal Code.