People v. Benitez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Benjamin Benitez, was employed by Jose Cua as a collector of rents. In July and August 1956, Benitez collected P540.00 from tenants but failed to turn over or account for the said amount to his employer. Upon demand, Benitez offered to work in Cua's establishment, with P100.00 to be deducted monthly from his salary until the P540.00 was fully paid. This offer and its conditions were accepted by Cua and reduced to writing. Procedural History: Benitez worked for only a few days and then stopped reporting. Cua sent a demand letter for settlement, which Benitez failed to heed. A complaint for estafa was filed, and the Court of First Instance of Manila found Benitez guilty, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty and to indemnify the offended party. The Petition: Benitez appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that his mere failure to account for the collections did not prove misappropriation or conversion, and that his agreement with his employer converted any criminal liability into a civil obligation. The case was certified to the Supreme Court as the questions raised were purely legal.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure to account for collected rents, upon demand, constitutes estafa. Whether a written agreement to pay the collected amount through salary deductions converts criminal liability into a civil obligation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, finding the accused guilty of estafa. The accused was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from 2 months and 1 day of arresto mayor to 1 year and 1 day of prision correccional, to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P540.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of estafa due to failure to account: The Court held that the failure to account upon demand for funds or property held in trust is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. In this case, the accused admitted collecting P540.00 as rentals and admitted failing to account for and turn over the amount to his employer upon demand, without any explanation. These circumstances, coupled with the accused's subsequent agreement to make restitution, clearly indicated that the amount was misappropriated by him. The Court cited Tubb vs. People and the Court of Appeals and People vs. Zamora to support the principle that failure to account or return property is evidence of conversion. On the issue of conversion of criminal liability to civil obligation: The Court reiterated the well-settled principle that criminal liability for estafa is not affected by compromise or novation of contract. Estafa is a public offense that must be prosecuted and punished by the Government on its own motion, even if complete reparation has been made. The Court cited U.S. vs. Mendezona, U.S. vs. Ontengco, U.S. vs. Rodriguez, People vs. Leachon, Javier vs. People, and People vs. Gervacio. The fact that the accused assumed the obligation of paying the rentals out of his salary after committing the misappropriation did not obliterate the criminal liability already incurred, as the criminal offense was committed against the People, and the offended party cannot waive or extinguish the criminal liability imposed by law.
Main Doctrine
The failure to account upon demand for funds or property held in trust is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. Criminal liability for estafa is not affected by compromise or novation of contract, as it is a public offense that must be prosecuted and punished by the Government.