People v. Bleibel
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant, Aclemandos Bleibel, entered into a contract with Messrs. Juan Ysmael & Co. to sell jewelry on commission. He received jewelry valued at P538.11, with an agreement to remit the proceeds immediately upon sale and to assume all risks. He was obliged to return the articles or pay their value upon demand. Bleibel proceeded to Leyte. On February 21, 1914, Ysmael & Co. demanded the return of the articles or their value. The record does not clearly show when Bleibel received this demand, but he testified that his brother received it and he only became aware of it in May 1914. The complaint for estafa was filed on September 29, 1914. The manager of Ysmael & Co. testified that the net value of the goods was P538.11, and that this amount was fully paid by Bleibel before he was arrested the first time, which was prior to the filing of the complaint. The manager also stated that Bleibel was an employee receiving P100 monthly salary and had a balance in his favor of approximately P143 at the time of the complaint. Procedural History: The complaint for estafa was filed on September 29, 1914. The trial opened on November 19, 1914. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial court rendered a judgment of conviction on November 19, 1914, sentencing the defendant to five months and eleven days of arresto mayor and to pay costs. The judgment also ordered the confiscation of the bond and payment of costs by the bondsmen. The defendant appealed. The Petition: The defendant appealed the judgment of conviction, arguing that the evidence did not support the charge of estafa, particularly since the full value of the goods had been paid prior to the filing of the complaint, and there was an outstanding salary due to him from the complainant.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure of a commission agent to return jewelry or its value upon demand, when the full value has already been paid to the principal before the filing of the criminal complaint, constitutes estafa. Whether the existence of an outstanding salary owed by the principal to the commission agent, and the lack of a prior settlement of accounts, affects the criminal liability for estafa.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court, acquitting the defendant of the crime of estafa. The Court held that the obligation had been extinguished by payment before the criminal action was filed, and therefore, no civil or criminal action lay in behalf of the offended party. The Court also reversed the order concerning the bondsmen.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of estafa: The Court held that the averment of deceitful and fraudulent taking was not proven. The evidence showed that the principal voluntarily delivered the jewelry to the commission agent. The failure to return goods or their value after receiving them for sale on commission does not constitute estafa unless the goods have been sold and the agent has misappropriated the proceeds. The Court cited previous decisions stating that delay in fulfilling a trust or delivering sums received on account only involves civil liability. Furthermore, so long as the sum due is not demanded and the debtor fails to deliver it due to wrongful disposal, no estafa is committed. In this case, the principal received full payment for the goods sold on commission in August 1914, prior to the filing of the complaint on September 29, 1914. Therefore, the obligation was extinguished, and no estafa was committed. On the issue of settlement of accounts: The Court noted that the principal had no right to avail itself of a criminal action to recover the value of the goods when it still owed the defendant P143 for salary on the date the complaint was filed. A settlement of accounts should have been made first. The lower court correctly observed that after such settlement, the defendant would not have owed P538.11, but approximately P400 (P395.11). The Court applied the rule that no estafa is committed by an agent who does not return a balance believed to be owing if the company fails to credit him with moneys he is entitled to, citing previous jurisprudence. Consequently, the rule that reimbursement is no bar to conviction for estafa already consummated was not applicable because no crime of estafa was committed, and there was no intention to commit such a crime.
Main Doctrine
The failure of a commission agent to return goods or their value upon demand does not constitute estafa if the agent has already paid the principal the full value of the goods sold on commission prior to the filing of the criminal complaint, and if there was an outstanding balance owed by the principal to the agent for salary, a settlement of accounts should have been made before resorting to criminal action.