People v. Nery
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 15, 1954, Soledad Nery received two diamond rings from Federico Matillano to be sold on commission, with the agreement that Nery would deliver P230.00 the following day and retain any overprice as commission. Nery failed to deliver the payment or the rings. She initially claimed the buyer backed out and later promised in writing to pay on January 25, 1955. After failing to comply, a complaint was filed, which was withdrawn or dismissed upon Nery making two partial payments of P20.00 each. Subsequently, on October 10, 1958, while a new case was pending, Nery executed a deed promising to pay P190.00 in installments, with her counsel jointly and severally binding himself. Nery made a P50.00 payment in March 1959, but the balance was never paid. Procedural History: The fiscal filed an information for estafa on February 12, 1955, with the municipal court, which was later withdrawn or dismissed. A new information was filed with the Court of First Instance on June 30, 1958. The trial court found Soledad Nery guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa, sentencing her to an indeterminate penalty and ordering her to indemnify Federico Matillano for the unpaid balance, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed the decision, raising the sole issue of law as to whether the original transaction, as modified by subsequent agreements and partial payments, had been novated, thereby converting the criminal liability into a mere civil liability.
Issue(s)
Whether the subsequent agreements and partial payments made by the accused-appellant novated the original transaction, thereby extinguishing her criminal liability for estafa. Whether the acceptance of partial payments by the offended party can obliterate a criminal offense that has already matured and is in the process of enforcement.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision, holding that novation does not extinguish criminal liability for estafa once criminal proceedings have been instituted by the State.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of novation and its effect on criminal liability: The Court held that novation is not a recognized mode for extinguishing criminal liability under the Penal Code. While novation might prevent the rise of criminal liability or cast doubt on the nature of the original transaction before criminal proceedings are initiated, it cannot extinguish criminal liability once the State has taken cognizance of the crime and instituted action in court. The crime of estafa is an offense against the State, and only the State, not the offended party, can renounce it. The Court cited several previous rulings, including People vs. Gervacio, emphasizing that a criminal offense is committed against the People, and the offended party cannot waive or extinguish the criminal liability imposed by law. The Court further clarified that even in civil law, the acceptance of partial payments without further change in the original relationship does not produce novation, as there must be a clear intent to extinguish the original obligation, which cannot be inferred from mere acceptance of payments on account. Much less can the acceptance of partial satisfaction nullify a criminal liability that is fully matured and already in the process of enforcement. The Court specifically noted that the alleged novation in this case occurred after the criminal case had been instituted and while it was pending trial, distinguishing it from cases where novation might have occurred prior to the filing of the information. On the effect of partial payments and compromise: The Court reiterated that the offended party's acceptance of a promissory note for all or part of the amount misapplied does not obliterate the criminal offense, citing Camus vs. Court of Appeals. The Court also addressed the dismissal of the initial charge in the municipal court, stating that it did not alter the case because the municipal court lacked jurisdiction over the offense, which was properly cognizable by the courts of first instance. The Court concluded that the accused-appellant's insistence on the novation theory had been rejected time and again by the Supreme Court in numerous decisions.
Main Doctrine
Novation, particularly through compromise or acceptance of partial payments, does not extinguish criminal liability for estafa once criminal proceedings have been instituted by the State, as the crime is an offense against the People and only the State can renounce it.