People v. Asensi
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Manuel B. Asensi, an employee of the Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas for twenty to twenty-five years, was entrusted with P3,487.50 to purchase internal revenue stamps for the company's distillery. Asensi spent only P3,087.50 on stamps and retained P400.00 for himself. Procedural History: Asensi was charged with estafa. The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to four months and one day of arresto mayor, to indemnify the corporation P400.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay costs. The Appeal: Asensi appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging four errors: (1) the court erred in admitting the existence of an injured person without proof of the corporation's personality; (2) the court erred in holding that he appropriated the difference in funds; (3) the court erred in not considering his open current account; and (4) the court erred in admitting Exhibit E (a confession) obtained through insidious machinations.
Issue(s)
Whether the existence of the offended corporation was sufficiently proven. Whether the defendant appropriated the difference between the funds received and the amount spent for stamps. Whether the existence of an open current account negates the appropriation of funds. Whether the confession (Exhibit E) was admissible as evidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. It held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the existence of the offended corporation, that the defendant did appropriate the P400.00, that no open account existed regarding the stamp transactions, and that the confession was admissible. The sentence of the lower court was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the existence of the offended corporation was sufficiently proven. The defendant himself recognized the corporation's existence by being its employee for twenty to twenty-five years, by signing a letter to the corporation, and by acknowledging receipt of funds from it. Furthermore, the testimony of Damian Urmeneta, which was admitted without objection, positively stated that the corporation was duly registered and had been doing business in the Philippines for thirty years. The Court also noted that when the existence of a corporation is alleged in a criminal complaint, it is not necessary to present its articles of incorporation; proof of its existence and business operations is ordinarily sufficient. The principle of estoppel applies, preventing the defendant from denying the corporate existence after dealing with it. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court found that the defendant did appropriate the difference of P400.00. The evidence showed that the defendant represented that P3,487.50 was needed for stamps, but later represented that only P3,087.50 was necessary. He received a check for P3,487.50, purchased stamps worth P3,087.50, and received P400.00 in cash as change. This P400.00 was not accounted for, nor was it offered to be returned to the corporation. The defendant's own confession in Exhibit E described a similar method of appropriation. On Issue 3: The Supreme Court ruled that the existence of an open current account did not negate the appropriation of funds in this specific transaction. While an account between the corporation and the defendant existed, the 'stamp account' was a distinct transaction. The corporation issued checks for the exact amount of stamps needed, and the delivery of stamps balanced that particular account. The defendant's duty was to ascertain the number of stamps, obtain a check payable to the Collector of Internal Revenue, and use it for the purchase. Any appropriation of these funds constituted a crime against his employer, irrespective of any other open accounts. On Issue 4: The Supreme Court held that the confession in Exhibit E was admissible. Although subordinate employees of the corporation suggested that a confession and return of funds might relieve him from prosecution by the corporation, this inducement was not sufficient to estop the corporation from seeking prosecution. Moreover, the confession was not made by a person with sufficient authority to bind the corporation. The Court found that the confession was made freely and without a promise of reward, and importantly, the evidence presented, even without considering Exhibit E, was sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Main Doctrine
An employee who receives funds from his employer for a specific purpose, such as purchasing internal revenue stamps, and instead appropriates a portion of those funds for his own benefit, commits the crime of estafa. Furthermore, an individual who has consistently dealt with and acknowledged the existence of a corporation over a long period, and received funds from it, is estopped from later denying the corporation's legal existence.