United States v. Alabanza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Mercedes Alabanza received a gold rosary valued at P100 from Juliana Aquino on commission, with the obligation to return it if unsold or pay its value. Alabanza failed to return the rosary or its value despite demands. It was later revealed that Alabanza had delivered the rosary to one Maria Reototar for sale on commission without the owner's authority. Affidavits later surfaced indicating Maria Reototar had died of cholera approximately four years prior to the affidavits being presented. Procedural History: The Provincial Fiscal of Ilocos Sur filed a complaint for estafa against Mercedes Alabanza. An agreement on certain facts was entered into between the fiscal and the defense counsel. The lower court rendered judgment finding Alabanza guilty of estafa and sentencing her to six months of arresto mayor, with accessory penalties, indemnity to the aggrieved party, subsidiary imprisonment, and costs. The defense moved for a reopening of the case due to new evidence regarding Maria Reototar's death, which was denied. The accused appealed. The Petition: The accused appealed the judgment of conviction and the denial of her motion for a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the facts presented constitute the crime of estafa under Article 535, paragraph 5 of the Penal Code. Whether the subsequent loss or repair of damage can efface the crime of estafa. Whether the denial of the motion for a new trial was proper.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is affirmed. The accused is sentenced to six months of arresto mayor, with accessory penalties, to indemnify the aggrieved party in the sum of P100, with subsidiary imprisonment not to exceed one-third of the penalty, and to pay the costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the facts constitute estafa: The Court held that the facts presented constitute the crime of estafa under Article 535, paragraph 5 of the Penal Code. The accused received the gold rosary on commission with the obligation to return it or pay its value. Instead of complying with this obligation, she disposed of the jewel by delivering it to another person, Maria Reototar, without the knowledge or authority of the owner, Juliana Aquino. This act, coupled with the subsequent inability to return the rosary or its value despite demands, demonstrated deceit and caused damage to the aggrieved party, fulfilling the elements of estafa. The Court emphasized that the appropriation or conversion of property received under an obligation to return it is punishable. On the issue of whether subsequent repair of damage can efface the crime: The Court ruled that once the crime of estafa has been consummated, neither the repair of the damage caused, nor the payment of the value of the thing misappropriated, nor any subsequent agreement can efface the crime or exempt the guilty person from the penalty incurred. This is in accordance with the constant and uniform practice of the courts. The consummation of the crime occurs upon the fraudulent disposition of the property, and subsequent actions cannot undo this. On the issue of the denial of the motion for a new trial: The Court found the denial of the motion for a new trial to be proper. The judge below stated that the affidavits regarding Maria Reototar's death had not been considered in rendering the judgment. Therefore, the evidence was not used in the conviction, and its subsequent presentation did not warrant a reopening of the case. The Court also noted that the agreement on facts, while a common practice, was sometimes done in violation of procedural law, and that the affidavits indicated a lack of due investigation by the government's representative before the agreement was entered into.
Main Doctrine
The appropriation or misapplication of property received on commission, with the obligation to return or pay its value, constitutes estafa, even if the property is subsequently lost or its value is repaired, as the crime is consummated upon the fraudulent disposition of the property.