People v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: R. B. Blackman, a surveyor, employed Domingo Reyes to collect P860 from twelve individuals for surveying work. Reyes collected P540 and delivered P368 to Blackman, retaining P172. A dispute arose regarding the agreed commission: Blackman claimed 10%, while Reyes claimed 20%. Procedural History: The trial court found Domingo Reyes guilty of estafa, sentencing him to four months and one day of arresto mayor, accessory penalties, indemnity to R. B. Blackman in the sum of P118, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and costs. The Petition: The accused appealed the trial court's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused is guilty of estafa. Whether the discrepancy in the agreed commission affects the determination of guilt for estafa.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding the accused guilty of estafa. The accused was sentenced to four months and one day of arresto mayor, with accessory penalties, and ordered to indemnify R. B. Blackman in the sum of P118, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt for estafa: The Court found the accused guilty of estafa under Article 535, paragraph 5, of the Penal Code. The Court noted marked discrepancies in the evidence, particularly concerning figures. Accepting the trial court's findings, the Court summarized the facts, highlighting the dispute over the commission. The Court reasoned that even if Reyes was entitled to a 20% commission, this did not entitle him to retain the collected amount in advance or to unilaterally determine the sum he could hold. The Court emphasized that under the oral contract, Reyes was an agent bound to pay his principal all that he had received by virtue of the agency, as per Article 1720 of the Civil Code. Furthermore, upon termination of the agency, the agent is obligated to turn over the amount collected, minus his commission on that amount. The Court also deferred to the trial court's findings due to the discrepancy in evidence, stating it was not disposed to set its judgment above that of the trial court. The assignment of error regarding the nonproduction of the preliminary investigation transcription was deemed not important as secondary evidence was admitted and substantial rights were not affected. On the effect of the commission dispute: The Court held that the discrepancy in the agreed commission (10% vs. 20%) did not absolve the accused of estafa. The Court reasoned that the right to receive a commission, whether 10% or 20%, did not grant the agent the right to unilaterally retain any sum he chose. The Court cited Campbell vs. The State, stating that the right to a commission did not make the agent the owner of the funds collected. The Court reiterated that the agent was bound to remit the collected amounts to the principal, deducting only the agreed commission on the amount actually collected.
Main Doctrine
An agent who misappropriates funds collected for his principal is guilty of estafa, and the right to a commission does not grant the agent the right to retain funds collected in advance or to determine the amount to be retained unilaterally.