Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > April 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. 2460 April 19, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. G. L. MUHN

006 Phil 164:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 2460. April 19, 1906. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. G. L. MUHN, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

Wm. J. Rohde, for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; "ESTAFA." — The defendant, an agent, at the termination of his contract of employment owed the principal 2,777.23 pesos. He then had in his hands 1,000 pesos in cash, the property of his principal. He refused to deliver this can unless the principal accepted in settlement of his debt certain claims against third persons growing out of the agency, which the principal declined to do. He afterwards used the 1,000 pesos in his private business, and lost it. Held, That as to the 1,000 pesos he was guilty of estafa.


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


In April, 1902, the defendant and Nicolas Carranceja made a contract, of which the following is a copy:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"DAET, CAMARINES NORTE, P. I., April —, 1902. "We, the undersigned of this contract, do agree to abide by the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"First. That Nicolas Carranceja employs G. L. Muhn, jr., at Labo, P. I., to buy hemp and sell rice and anisado paying him a salary of 70 pesos, Mexican, per month, with a commission of 0.25 pesos, Mexican, for each pico of hemp he purchases and 0.12� pesos, Mexican, for each sack of rice or demijohn of anisado that he sells.

"Second. While in the employ of N. Carranceja the above said G. L. Muhn will not buy hemp or sell rice and anisado for any other party.

"Third. That either of the undersigned may withdraw from this contract or suspend the same by giving one month’s notice to the other."cralaw virtua1aw library

Business was carried on by the defendant and Nicolas Carranceja under this contract until the death of the latter on the 27th of May, 1902. After his death it was continue without interruption, the interest of his estate being represented by his son, Ricardo Carranceja, until the 30th day of September, when the contract was terminated.

On the 6th day of December, 1902, an agreement was made between the defendant and the representative of the estate by the terms of which the defendant admitted that he was indebted to the estate by reason of the business carried on under the contract above mentioned in the amount of 2,777.23 pesos, which he promised to pay in installments of 200 pesos on the 1st day of the next January and 100 pesos monthly thereafter until the whole was paid. He did not pay anything under this contact and a complaint for estafa having been presented against him, he was tried upon this charge, and was convicted in the court below of having wrongfully appropriated to his own use 1,300 pesos of the money of the estate, and was sentenced to two years eleven months and ten days’ imprisonment (prision correccional). From this judgment the defendant appealed.

As to the foregoing facts there is no dispute. In addition thereto we think it is also proved that at the time the relations between the parties were terminated on the 30th day of September there was an adjustment of the accounts by the said parties, and it was ascertained that there was then due to the estate of Nicolas Carranceja about 2,500 pesos.

It is claimed by the appellant that the contract above quoted created the relation of debtor and creditor between the parties, or made the defendant a partner with Nicolas Carranceja in the business that was to be carried on under this contract. The evidence does not support this contention. The terms of the contract are plain, and by virtue thereof the defendant was made the agent of Nicolas Carranceja. The money that was furnished to the defendant for the purpose of carry in on the business was the money of Nicolas, and did not became the money of the defendant as soon as it was furnished to him. The fact that in the books of account of the commercial house of Nicolas Carranceja the money was charged to the defendant and that other articles sent to him were also charged to him can not change the essential character of the contract between the parties. This was merely a method of keeping an account of the business, so that the parties would know how much money had been invested therein and what the condition thereof was at any particular time.

Neither is there anything in the said contract nor in the evidence to show that the defendant was in any sense of partner with the complaining witness.

Another fact was proved by the admission of the defendant. At the trial he testified as follows. :jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. When you separated yourself from the house how much money belonging to the house did you then have on hand?—A. Something like 1,000 pesos; I don’t remember exactly.

"Q. What become of that 1,000 pesos? —A. I used it in the business and lost it. Ii found that I couldn’t do business very well without letting out money, and as I had not a great amount to let out, people wouldn’t bring hemp to me; also, living expenses were very high in Labo. . . .

"Q. Then when you separated yourself from the house, what become of the property that you had on hand belonging to the house? — A I still have some. Some is left in Labo and some of it is sold.

"Q. Where is the money that you received from settling accounts? — A. I had no business, and expenses were all that I had — that is, after the Labo business.

"Q. Do you desire to state that you used the funds for living expenses? —A. Yes; and in the business."cralaw virtua1aw library

It also appears that after the 30th of September, when he left the employ of the complaining witness, he carried on the same kind of business on his own account at Labo.

It appears from his evidence that on the 1st day of October he had in his hands at least 1,000 pesos in cash which did not belong to him, and which did belong to the estate. This was money which he as under an obligation to return to the estate. He did not return it, but on the contrary appropriated it to his own use. There can be no question but that to the extent of this 1,000 pesos he was guilty of the crime of estafa. As to the remainder of the sum of 2,777.23 pesos, for which he admitted his liability in the contact of December 6, 1902, there is not sufficient evidence in the case to show that he appropriated this money to this own use, and we can not say as to this sum that he has been proved guilty of the crime of estafa.

The cases cited by the appellant in his brief to show that he is not guilty of estafa have a bearing upon his liability as to the balance of 1,777.23 pesos which he had in his hands at the termination of the contract, and which he appropriated to his own use.

It was proved at the trial that in carrying on the business under the contract the defendant made advances to certain persons, which advance had not been repaid to him, and that he had in his hands at the termination of the contract various promissory noted growing out of theses transactions. At the time of the settlement on October 1 he offered to deliver to the estate the entire "business," as he termed it including the 1,000 pesos. This offer the representative of the estate declined to accept, and it is claimed by the appellant that he can not be convicted in view of this offer; that the entire business belonged to the estate, and that they were bound to take it as it was, and could not insist upon his turning over part of the property and remaining liable for the rest. At the time he made this offer he had in his possession 1,000 pesos belonging to the estate. It was his duty to turn this over at all events. Whether or not he was liable for the remainder of the amount due, and whether or not the loss, if any, growing out of the advances made by him should fall upon him or upon the estate, were questions that could be determined thereafter. He had no right to use the 1,000 pesos belonging to the estate simply because the estate refused to accept as cash promissory notes which he had in his hands. Whatever the rights of the parties were as to those notes, they could not in any way affect the obligation resting upon the defendant to pay over the cash which he had in his hands, and which he admitted did not belong to him, and which he afterwards used.

The judgment of the court below is modified so as to make the amount wrongfully appropriated by the defendant 1,000 pesos instead of 1,300 pesos, and the amount of the indemnity to be paid to the widow of Nicolas Carranceja 1,000 pesos instead of 1,300 pesos, the subsidiary imprisonment not exceed one-third of the principal penalty. In all other respects the judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. After the expiration of ten days from the date of final judgment let the case be remanded to the lower court for proper procedure. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa and Johnson, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 2400 April 3, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. HOMER E. GRAFTON

    006 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. L-2461 April 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MARTIN SARTE

    008 Phil 737

  • G.R. No. 2069 April 4, 1906 - W. M. TIPTON v. VICENTE CENJOR Y CANO

    006 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 2220 April 4, 1906 - W. M. TIPTON v. MARIANO VELASCO CHUA-CHINGCO

    006 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 2338 April 4, 1906 - BRAULIO FELICIANO v. LORENZO DEL ROSARIO

    006 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. 2467 April 4, 1906 - NICASIO MAGNO v. MARIA BUGAYONG

    006 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. 2382 April 5, 1906 - ARSENIO JIMENEZ v. JULIO JAVELLANA

    006 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 2307 April 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CHU CHANG

    006 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 3268 April 9, 1906 - VICTOR D. GORDON v. GEORGE N. WOLFE

    006 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 2233 April 10, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. AMBROSIO MINA

    006 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. 2717 April 10, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO EJERCITO

    006 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 1562 April 11, 1906 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ v. A. S. WATSON & CO.

    006 Phil 84

  • G.R. No. 2342 April 11, 1906 - CONCEPCION CALVO v. ANGELES OLIVES

    006 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 2412 April 11, 1906 - PEDRO ROMAN v. ANDRES GRIMALT

    006 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 2484 April 11, 1906 - JOHN FORTIS v. GUTIERREZ HERMANOS

    006 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 2533 April 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FLORENTINO PAETE

    006 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. 2598 April 11, 1906 - N. N. BASILA BROS. v. FARES ACKAD

    006 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. 2747 April 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN BASCO

    006 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 3137 April 11, 1906 - ROMAN DE LA ROSA v. GREGORIO REVITA

    006 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 1561 April 16, 1906 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ v. A. S. WATSON & CO.

    006 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. 2386 April 16, 1906 - MIGUEL FUENTES v. JUANA CANON Y FAUSTINO

    006 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. 2494 April 16, 1906 - CATALINA ARGUELLES v. THOMAS D. AITKEN

    006 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 2506 April 16, 1906 - F. STEWART JONES v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    006 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 2507 April 16, 1906 - CRISTOBAL RAMOS Y MARTINEZ v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    006 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 2539 April 16, 1906 - VICENTE BALPIEDAD v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    006 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. 2540 April 16, 1906 - SEPA CARIÑO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    006 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 2754 April 16, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CIPRIANO JARANDILLA

    006 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 2963 April 16, 1906 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS v. CITY OF MANILA

    006 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. 1816 April 17, 1906 - CARLOS GSELL v. VALERIANO VELOSO YAP-JUE

    006 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 1882 April 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS AYALA

    006 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 2334 April 18, 1906 - VICENTE W. PASTOR v. MACARIO NICASIO

    006 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 2309 April 19, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON TAYLOR

    006 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. 2460 April 19, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. G. L. MUHN

    006 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 2508 April 19, 1906 - FRANCISCO BEECH v. FELICISIMA GUZMAN

    006 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 3174 April 20, 1906 - HARRY J. FINNICK v. JAMES J. PETERSON

    006 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 2377 April 23, 1906 - TEODORO S. BENEDICTO v. JOHN H. GRINDROD

    006 Phil 179

  • G.R. No. 2317 April 25, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO BALBAS

    006 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-2330 April 25, 1906 - UNITED STATE v. CHARLES J. COCKRILL

    008 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. 2402 April 26, 1906 - APOLINARIO MODESTO v. CONCEPCION LEYVA

    006 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-2524 April 27, 1906 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. AGAPITA MAGLONSO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 745

  • G.R. No. 3026 April 27, 1906 - MELCHOR BABASA v. PAUL W. LINEBARGER, ET AL.

    012 Phil 766

  • G.R. No. 2241 April 27, 1906 - PRUDENCIA DEL ROSARIO v. SEVERINA LERMA

    006 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. 2440 April 27, 1906 - TELESFORO ALO v. CLODOALDO ROCAMORA

    006 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. 2471 April 27, 1906 - SEVERINA LERMA Y MARTINEZ DE ALMEDA v. EMETERIO ALVAREZ

    006 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 2391 April 28, 1906 - ANASTASIO MATEOS v. FELIX LOPEZ

    006 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. 2713 April 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN JOSE

    006 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 2729 April 28, 1906 - DEL-PAN v. MARTINIANO M. VELOSO

    006 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 1963 April 30, 1906 - BAER SENIOR & CO.’S SUCCESSORS v. LA COMPAÑIA MARITIMA

    006 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. 2077 April 30, 1906 - MARIA CONCEPCION SEBASTIAN LUCIA v. MATEO PEREZ

    006 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. 2308 April 30, 1906 - NIEVES ARAUJO v. GREGORIA CELIS

    006 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 2318 April 30, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. AGO-CHI

    006 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 2466 April 30, 1906 - ROBERT LIENAU v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    006 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. 2470 April 30, 1906 - PASTOR LEMA Y MARTINEZ v. DIONISIA ANTONIA

    006 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 2518 April 30, 1906 - HERMENEGILDO ALFONSO v. PEDRO NATIVIDAD

    006 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. 2720 April 30, 1906 - COMPAÑIA AGRICULA DE ULTRAMAR v. MARCOS DOMINGO

    006 Phil 246