People v. Salapare
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant, Pacifico Salapare, received a portable typewriter from The Office Appliance Company under a three-day trial agreement, with the understanding that it would be returned thereafter. The typewriter was valued at P126. Procedural History: The defendant failed to return the typewriter within the stipulated period and instead appropriated it for his own benefit, to the damage and prejudice of The Office Appliance Company. An information was filed charging the defendant with estafa. He pleaded guilty in the Court of First Instance of Manila and was sentenced to two months and one day of arresto mayor, to indemnify the offended entity in the amount of P126 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The Petition: The defendant appealed the judgment, arguing that the facts alleged in the information only constituted a civil action.
Issue(s)
Whether the facts alleged in the information constitute the crime of estafa. Whether the penalty imposed by the lower court is in accordance with law. Whether the defendant's confession qualifies as a mitigating circumstance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for estafa but modified the penalty imposed. The Court ruled that the facts clearly constitute estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1, sub-section (b) of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty imposed by the lower court was modified to four months and twenty days of arresto mayor, considering that the confession was not made before the presentation of evidence and thus did not qualify as a mitigating circumstance.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the facts constitute estafa: The Court held that the facts alleged in the information plainly state that the defendant received a portable typewriter from The Office Appliance Company under a three-day trial period with the obligation to return it. The information further alleged that the defendant, notwithstanding the elapsed time, did not return the machine but instead appropriated it for himself and disposed of it, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, for his own benefit and to the damage and prejudice of the owner. These facts clearly constitute the crime of estafa, defined and penalized in Article 315, paragraph 1, sub-section (b) of the Revised Penal Code. This provision covers misappropriation or conversion of personal property received in trust or under an obligation to return the same. The defendant's admission of these facts rendered his appeal without merit on this point. On the penalty imposed by the lower court: The Court found that the penalty imposed by the lower court was not in accordance with law. For estafa where the amount defrauded does not exceed P200, the law prescribes the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, which ranges from two months and one day to six months. The lower court imposed two months and one day of arresto mayor, which falls within the minimum period of the penalty prescribed for the offense. On the confession as a mitigating circumstance: The Court clarified that for the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession to be taken into account, it must be made before the presentation of any evidence by the prosecution. In this case, although the defendant pleaded guilty in the Court of First Instance, he had initially denied the charge in the Municipal Court and only changed his plea to guilty after several days in the Court of First Instance, and after the prosecution was compelled to adduce its evidence. Therefore, his confession did not qualify as a mitigating circumstance under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. Consequently, neither a mitigating nor an aggravating circumstance was proved at the trial, and the proper penalty should be the medium period of the prescribed penalty, which is three months and eleven days to four months and twenty days.
Main Doctrine
The crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1, sub-section (b) of the Revised Penal Code is committed when goods received under an obligation to return are misappropriated or converted to the prejudice of the owner. A confession made after the prosecution has presented evidence, particularly on appeal, does not qualify as a mitigating circumstance.