People v. Eustaquio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant-appellant, Patricio Eustaquio, was charged with estafa. The complaint alleged that on or about May 9, 1914, in the city of Manila, he received various pieces of jewelry valued at P850 from Crescencio Rebullida, with the promise to sell them on commission or return them with the agreed price. The defendant failed to return all the jewelry or its price. Before and during the trial, all the jewelry was returned, except for certain pieces amounting to P232. Procedural History: The defendant was arrested, arraigned, tried, found guilty of estafa, and sentenced by the Honorable Jose C. Abreu to six months of arresto mayor, to indemnify Crescencio Rebullida in the sum of P232, and to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The lower court also ordered the return of jewelry pawned by the defendant and his wife to Filomena Concepcion and Ignacio de Asis to the offended person. The Petition: The defendant appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court, making several assignments of error.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant is guilty of the crime of estafa. Whether the defendant's liability is affected by his wife's alleged pawning of a portion of the jewelry without his knowledge or consent.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, finding the defendant guilty of estafa. The sentence imposed by the lower court was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt for estafa: The evidence clearly shows that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. The proof established that he received the goods on commission to sell, with the obligation to return either the jewelry or its value. Furthermore, the proof demonstrated that he misappropriated a portion of the jewelry, amounting to P232, to the prejudice of Crescencio Rebullida. The existence of the two elements constituting the crime of estafa, namely, deceit by which it was intended to defraud and damage caused to the owner, was thus established. On the issue of the wife's actions: The defendant attempted to excuse his criminal liability by alleging that a portion of the jewelry had been pawned by his wife, against his knowledge and consent. While it is possible that his wife did pawn a portion of the jewelry, whether she did so with or without the consent of her husband, the defendant herein, in no way affects his criminal liability. The law is clear that when merchandise is received for sale on commission, under the obligation to return the same or its value, and is thereafter delivered to a third person without the knowledge or authority of the owner, the two essential elements of estafa are present: (a) the deceit by which it was intended to defraud, and (b) the damage caused the owner. This principle was reiterated in the case of U.S. vs. Alabanza.
Main Doctrine
The crime of estafa under Article 535 of the Penal Code exists when merchandise is received for sale on commission, under the obligation to return the same or its value, and is thereafter delivered to a third person without the knowledge or authority of the owner, thereby constituting both deceit intended to defraud and damage caused to the owner.