People v. Espino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Lorenzo Espino y Soriano, negotiated with Julian de Leon for the use of an automobile for hire. They agreed on a daily rental fee of P25 for trips between Manila and Binangonan, Rizal, payable daily. The accused took the vehicle to Binangonan. The following day, when De Leon demanded payment, the accused claimed he had a check to be encashed. De Leon believed him, and the accused continued to use the car for four more days. Despite repeated demands, the accused failed to pay. De Leon eventually took the accused to an attorney, where the accused admitted he had no money. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a judgment sentencing the accused to four years, two months, and one day of presidio correccional, to pay P110 to the offended party with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay costs, finding him guilty of estafa as a recidivist. The Petition: The defendant appealed the judgment, contending that the proven facts did not constitute estafa.
Issue(s)
Whether the facts proven constitute the crime of estafa. Whether the information was sufficient regarding the allegation of deceit.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, finding the accused guilty of estafa.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the facts proven constitute estafa: The Court held that the facts sufficiently established the crime of estafa. It applied the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court of Spain on February 16, 1881, and May 6, 1892, which states that the hiring of a thing with the intention of not paying for its use constitutes deceit. In this case, it was sufficiently proven by indicia that the defendant had no intention to pay for the use of the automobile when he hired it, but deceitfully simulated such an intention. The deceit became more positive and indubitable when, upon being required to pay the rent for the first day, the accused falsely claimed to have a check with which he would pay as soon as it was changed, when in reality he had neither the check nor the money. This simulation of solvency and ability to pay, coupled with the subsequent failure to pay and the admission of having no money, clearly demonstrated the fraudulent intent from the outset. On the issue of whether the information was sufficient regarding the allegation of deceit: The Court found the information to be sufficient. It stated that the information alleged that the defendant defrauded the offended party. Furthermore, no objection was made to the information during the proceedings, implying that the accused was apprised of the charge against him and was able to prepare his defense accordingly. The sufficiency of the information, in light of the evidence presented and the lack of objection, was therefore upheld.
Main Doctrine
The hiring of a vehicle with the pre-conceived intention of not paying for its use constitutes estafa, particularly when deceitful pretenses are employed to obtain possession and continued use of the property.