ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
 





 
 

G.R. No. 202   September 21, 1901 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS RASTROLLO<br /><br />001 Phil 22

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 202. September 21, 1901. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. CARLOS RASTROLLO, Defendant-Appellant.

Vicente Gonzales Azaola, for Appellant.

Assistant Attorney-General Constantino, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; ESTAFA. — The misappropriation of the proceeds of the sale of attached property, sold by consent, by the depository, constitutes malversation under sections 395, 390, and 392 of the Penal Code, and not embezzlement (estafa).

2. ID.; MALVERSATION OF FUNDS. — Mere delay in depositing the proceeds of the sale of attached property without affirmative proof of misappropriation or misapplication thereof does not constitute a crime.


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


In civil proceedings instituted to obtain a preventive attachment to secure a debt contracted by Carlos Rastrollo in favor of D. Emeterio Ruiz, 1,121 feet of hose, among other property belonging to said Rastrollo, was attached at the instance of Attorney Florencio Gonzales on behalf of Don Gerardo Urbina. The attached property remained in the possession of the debtor, Rastrollo, who, with the consent of the attorney for the plaintiff, sold the same to the Manila Fire Department. Rastrollo failed to deliver the proceeds of the sale, which took place late in March of this year, to the attorney for the plaintiff, and only deposited the same in the court on the 4th day of June of this year, the day following the filing of the complaint charging him with the crime of embezzlement (estafa).

If the acts of which the accused is charged constitute any crime whatever it would be that of malversation of property attached by judicial order — the crime defined and punished in article 395 in connection with articles 390 and 392 of the Penal Code. The act could not be regarded as constituting estafa under paragraph 5 of article 535 of the Code, because the property alleged to have been misapplied was not the subject of a mere private bailment but of a judicial deposit. This gives the depositary a character equivalent to that of a public official, and a breach of his obligation is similar to the violation of the obligations imposed by public office.

However, as the accused, Rastrollo, in selling the said hose, acted with the knowledge and consent of the attorney for his creditor, since it is proved that the said attorney agreed with the depositary that the proceeds of the sale should be delivered to him, and inasmuch as there is no proof, on the other hand, that the depositary, Rastrollo, appropriated or applied the proceeds of the sale of the hose to his own use or that of others, but has deposited the same in court, although somewhat tardily, it is evident that the defendant has contracted no criminal liability. His act does not include all of the elements which constitute the crime of malversation, or of any other crime, and the irregularity noted in his conduct is chargeable to the attorney for the creditor who might have been prejudiced thereby.

In view of the foregoing considerations, which are completely in accord with the penal law and the conclusions and merits of the case, the accused, Don Carlos Rastrollo, should be acquitted and the judgment appealed from reversed with costs in both instances de oficio. It is so ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Cooper, Willard, Mapa and Ladd, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 202   September 21, 1901 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS RASTROLLO<br /><br />001 Phil 22


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

   

cralaw



 
  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED