People v. Dominguez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Isaac Dominguez, a salesman at Philippine Education Co., Inc., received P7.50 from Lamberto Garcia for the sale of five copies of a book. It was his duty to turn over this amount to the company's cashier. Instead, the accused misappropriated the sum for his personal use. Procedural History: The trial court found the accused guilty of estafa and sentenced him to two months and one day of arresto mayor. The accused appealed, arguing that the court erred in finding him guilty and in imposing the penalty for a principal in estafa. The Petition: The accused contended that his failure to immediately remit the money was due to the busyness of the cashiers and his need to use the restroom, and that he did not intend to use the money. He also claimed that the offense, if any, was merely frustrated estafa, not consummated estafa.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused is guilty of estafa. Whether the offense committed is consummated estafa or frustrated estafa.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is modified. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of 325 pesetas, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs of the trial.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt and classification of the offense: The Court held that the accused is guilty of frustrated estafa. The accused performed all the acts of execution which should have resulted in the consummation of the crime of estafa, namely, selling the books and receiving the payment. However, the crime was not consummated because of causes independent of his will, specifically, the timely discovery of his acts by the company. The Court emphasized that no appreciable damage was caused to the offended party, which is an essential element for the consummation of estafa. The accused's attempts to conceal his actions, such as initially claiming a woman bought the books without paying and later stating he used part of the money for postage stamps, further indicated his intent to defraud, but the immediate discovery prevented the completion of the damage. On the nature of frustrated estafa: Applying the doctrine established by the Supreme Court of Spain, the Court reiterated that an offense is frustrated when the accused performs all the acts of execution that would have produced the crime, but the crime does not materialize due to reasons beyond the accused's control. In this case, the accused's intent to convert the money to his own use was evident, and he took steps that would have led to the completion of the estafa. However, the discovery of the deceit by the company prevented the actual prejudice or damage, thus classifying the offense as frustrated estafa. The Court cited Viada's commentaries and Spanish Supreme Court decisions to support this classification, particularly cases where the return of the property or the discovery of the fraud occurred before the damage was fully realized by the offended party.
Main Doctrine
The accused is guilty of frustrated estafa when all the acts of execution which should produce the crime are performed, but the crime is not consummated due to causes independent of the will of the actor, and no appreciable damage is caused to the offended party.