Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1907 > October 1907 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3796 October 17, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIA RAMIREZ

009 Phil 67:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-3796. October 17, 1907. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MACARIA RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellee.

Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellant.

F. Dominguez, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. "ESTAFA." — The appropriation or misapplication of money, jewels, or personal property of any other kind received as a deposit, on commission, for administration or in any other character, producing the obligation to return the same to the person from whom it was received, constitutes the crime of estafa, the two essential elements of which are deceit and fraud or the intent to commit the same.

2. ID.; CONVERSION. — When a sum of money is delivered to be used in a transaction to be realized immediately and which admits of no delay on account of the nature of the merchandise, it should be returned or the person who received the same should account for it within a reasonable term during which the transaction may be deemed to have been accomplished; and when a very long time has elapsed without the amount being returned or accounted for by the person bound to do so, return of the money, that the funds have been fraudulently appropriated or misapplied to the prejudice of the owner thereof.


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


On the 11th of December, 1906, a written information was presented by George W. Walker accusing Macaria Ramirez of the crime of estafa committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 15th day of April, 1906, in the city of Manila, P. I., the said Macaria Ramirez did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, with intent of gain, and without the consent of the owner thereof, appropriate and convert to her own use P65, the property of George W. Walker, then and there received by and in the hands of the said Macaria Ramirez for the purpose of buying fish and using the said sum in the business of buying and selling fish in the said city of Manila and under the obligation then and there to account for and deliver the said sum of P65, or the proceeds thereof either in money or property of the said business to the said George W. Walker; to the damage and prejudice of the said George W. Walker in the sum of P65, equivalent to and of the value of 325 pesetas. All contrary to law."cralaw virtua1aw library

Proceedings having been instituted by virtue of the foregoing complaint, the accused pleaded not guilty, and on the 28th of December her lawyer demurred thereto on the ground that the facts stated in the complaint did not constitute the crime of estafa and asked that the case be dismissed and the accused acquitted, with the costs estafa. The prosecuting attorney, however, moved that the demurrer be overruled, alleging that the complaint had been filed in accordance with paragraph 5 of article 535 of the Penal Code, and cited the case of the United States v. Mateo Perez (1 Phil. Rep., 203), a case similar to the present one, wherein, a demurrer having been considered by the court below, the Supreme Court revoked the decision appealed from in view of the fact that the charge made in the complaint constituted, under the law, a crime and contained all the elements which constitute the crime of estafa; and that, if the accused had actually appropriated the money received and did not return it when requested to do so, the demurrer should be overruled and the accused obliged to answer the complaint.

The lower court, however, by an order dated January 16, sustained the demurrer because the commission of the crime had not been proven and because the accused had not been given an opportunity to render accounts or to return the money as required. From said decision the prosecution appealed to this court. Article 535, No. 5, of the Penal Code provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Those who, to the prejudice of another, shall appropriate or misapply any money, goods, or any kind of personal property which they may have received as a deposit on commission for administration or in any other character producing the obligation to deliver or return the same, or who shall deny having received it."cralaw virtua1aw library

The appropriation or conversion of money, among other personal property, received on deposit, on commission, for administration, or in any other character, producing the obligation to return it, constitutes the crime of estafa, the two essential elements of which are deceit and fraud or the intent to commit the same.

The accused, Macaria Ramirez, received from George W. Walker on or about the 15th day of April, 1906, the sum of P65 for the purpose of investing the same in the business of buying and selling fish in this city, under the precise obligation to account for the sum received, and as, notwithstanding the lapse of seven months and twenty-seven days, the accused did not account for the money received nor produce the fish which she ought to have bought with the said P65, it can not be denied that George W. Walker, the owner of the money, have been deceived and is the victim of fraud, because he was fraudulently deprived of the said sum to his damage and to the prejudice of his interests.

George W. Walker did not deliver the P65 to Macaria Ramirez as a gift or present in order that she might dispose of the same at will. She received the money for the purpose of using it in the business of buying and selling fish, and when seven months and some days transpire without the appearance of the fish or of the money which according to the accused was to have been invested therein, it becomes evident that Ramirez acted with deceit and bad faith to the prejudice of Walker, and that, therefore, the acts stated in the complaint have been committed and they constitute the crime of estafa. And if it is true, as alleged by the defense, that the accused had not appropriate the money received by her, but supposing that it was used in the purchase of fish, the latter should have been sold at once, and in such case it can not be denied that the proceeds of the sale remained in the hands of the accused, Ramirez, who managed the business, and, from the fact that she did not return the money to the owner thereof, as it was her duty to do, she was appropriated the same, because the said sum of P65 was delivered to her not in order that she might convert it to her own use but to be returned after the business for which the money was intended had been transacted.

The consummation of the crime of estafa — that is, the fraudulent appropriation of the said P65 — does not depend on the fact that a request for the return of the money is first made and refused in order that the author of the crime should comply with the obligation to return the sum misapplied. The appropriation or conversion of money received to the prejudice of the owner thereof are the sole essential facts which constitute the crime of estafa, and thereupon the author thereof incurs the penalty imposed by the Penal Code.

For the foregoing considerations there was no legal reason whereby the exception to the complaint should have been considered, and the court below should have overruled the same and ordered that the case be proceeded with. Therefore; in view of the provisions of section 44 of General Orders, No. 58, it is our opinion that the judgment, dated January 16, this year, appealed from must be reversed and the demurrer overruled. Let the cause be remanded to the court from whence it came, with instructions to proceed accordingly, and the judgment be entered in conformity with the law, with the costs estafa. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Willard, and Tracey, 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






October-1907 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3543 October 1, 1907 - LA CAPELLANIA DEL CONVENTO DE TAMBOBONG v. GUILLERMO ANTONIO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-3587 October 2, 1907 - FRANCISCO ALDAMIS v. FAUSTINO LEUTERIO

    008 Phil 688

  • G.R. No. L-2827 October 3, 1907 - MARIA LOPEZ Y VILLANUEVA v. TAN TIOCO

    008 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-3409 October 3, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. REMIGIO BUSTAMANTE, ET AL.

    008 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. L-3515 October 3, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON MACK

    008 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-3520 October 3, 1907 - HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA v. JOSE ROBLES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-3571 October 3, 1907 - VALENTIN LACUESTA, ET AL. v. PATERNO GUERRERO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. L-3957 October 3, 1907 - DOMINGO REYES, ET AL. v. SOR EFIGENIA ALVAREZ

    008 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. L-3716 October 4, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BIBIANO BORJA

    008 Phil 726

  • G.R. No. L-3729 October 4, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ZACARIAS VALENCIA

    008 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. L-3744 October 5, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS CASTAÑARES

    008 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. 3067 October 7, 1907 - RUBERT & GUAMIS v. LUENGO & MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-3642 October 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO XAVIER

    008 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. L-2558 October 8, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN MACALALAD

    009 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-4052 October 8, 1907 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES v. HON. A. S. CROSSFIELD, ET AL.

    008 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-3715 October 8, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BIBIANO BORJA

    009 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-3749 October 8, 1907 - ARTADY & CO. v. CLARO SANCHEZ

    009 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. L-3807 October 8, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO CABIGAO

    009 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-4052 October 8, 1907 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES v. HON. A. S. CROSSFIELD

    009 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. L-3752 October 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FAUSTO BASILIO

    009 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-4057 October 9, 1907 - MARIANO MACATANGAY v. MUN. OF SAN JUAN DE BOCBOC

    009 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. L-3181 October 10, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. GUMERSINDO DE LA SANTA

    009 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. L-3438 October 12, 1907 - MANUEL LOPEZ Y VILLANUEVA v. EVARISTO ALVAREZ Y PEREZ

    009 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-3594 October 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ALLEN A. GARNER

    009 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. L-3609 October 12, 1907 - EULALIA ESPINO v. DANIEL ESPINO

    009 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-3660 October 12, 1907 - JOSE TAN SUNCO v. ALEJANDRO SANTOS

    009 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-3887 October 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO FLORES

    009 Phil 47

  • G.R. No. L-3961 October 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDORO BASE

    009 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. L-3224 October 17, 1907 - MUÑOZ & CO. v. STRUCKMANN & CO., ET AL.

    009 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-3796 October 17, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIA RAMIREZ

    009 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. L-3905 October 17, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. REMIGIO DONATO

    009 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 3810 October 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. DAMIAN ORERA

    011 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. L-2870 October 18, 1907 - CITY OF MANILA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    009 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. L-3766 October 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. PONCIANO LIMCANGCO

    009 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-3808 October 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO VICTORIA

    009 Phil 81

  • G.R. No. L-3873 October 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUSTO DACUYCUY

    009 Phil 84

  • G.R. No. L-3760 October 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. WALTER B. BROWN

    009 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-3819 October 19, 1907 - JESUS SANCHEZ MELLADO v. MUNICIPALITY OF TACLOBAN

    009 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-3853 October 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN VILLANUEVA

    009 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-3949 October 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. GABINO SORIANO

    009 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-3532 October 21, 1907 - TY LACO CIOCO v. ARISTON MURO

    009 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-3644 October 21, 1907 - VICENTE QUESADA v. ISABELO ARTACHO

    009 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-3694 October 21, 1907 - JULIANA BONCAN v. SMITH

    009 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. L-3649 October 24, 1907 - JOSE GUZMAN v. WILLIAM X

    009 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. L-3761 October 24, 1907 - SALUSTIANO LERMA Y MARTINEZ v. FELISA MAMARIL

    009 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. L-3560 October 26, 1907 - MAGDALENA LEDESMA v. ILDEFONSO DORONILA

    009 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-3619 October 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. APOLONIO CANAMAN

    009 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. L-3676 October 26, 1907 - PONS Y COMPANIA v. LA COMPANIA MARITIMA

    009 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3695 October 16, 1907 - ALEJANDRA PALANCA v. SMITH

    009 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. L-3745 October 26, 1907 - JUAN AGUSTIN v. BARTOLOME INOCENCIO

    009 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-3756 October 28, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ILDEFONSO RODRIGUEZ

    009 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. L-3633 October 30, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TEODORA BORJAL

    009 Phil 140