Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > March 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. 4109 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JULIANA TORRES

011 Phil 606:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4109. March 21, 1908. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JULIANA TORRES, Defendant. — RAMONA R. EVANGELISTA, JOSE TEJUCO, and MAGDALENA DE CASTRO, Appellants.

Gabriel & Borbon, Monroy & Jose, Salas & Soncuya, and Teodoro Gonzalez for Appellants.

Attorney-General Araneta for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. PERSONAL PROPERTY; SALE BY AGENT IN VIOLATION OF INSTRUCTION. — Where the owner of personal property delivery it to another for the purpose of sale, fixing the price at which the sale is to be made, sale at a price less than that fixed does not prevent the passing of title to the purchaser, and the goods call not be recovered by the former owner.

2. "ESTAFA." — When an agent who has been entrusted with goods to be sold at a price fixed by the owner, sells them at less than the price fixed, and appropriates to his own use the money realized, the crime of estafa which he thereby commits consists in the misappropriation and not in the wrongful sale.


D E C I S I O N


ARELLANO, C.J. :


This accused was sentenced for the crime of estafa by the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila to six months imprisonment with hard labor in Bilibid Prison and to pay the costs, from which judgment she did not appeal.

With respect to the civil responsibility dealt with in the record, the court below rendered judgment as to the jewels sold or pledged by the accused to third persons, and as a consequence of such judgment, third appeals have been presented to this court. Two of them were by third persons ordered to return some jewels in their hands to the aggrieved party who lost the possession thereof through the estafa committed by the accused, and another appeal was on behalf of the offended party to whom the restitution of another jewel in the hands of another third party was denied.

It is a proven fact, and was so found by the trial judge that on December 18, 1905, Ramona R. Evangelista delivered certain jewels to Juliana Torres "under the obligation — the complaint states — on the part of Juliana Torres, to sell them at the price fixed for the each jewel, or, in case she could not sell the same, to return them on the said date, December 18, 1906."cralaw virtua1aw library

The accused, however, did not do so.

She sold to Jose Tejuco, for P300, ring priced at P600.

To the same Jose Tejuco she gave two rings valued at P80 each, as a pledge for a loan of P25.

And she sold to Magdalena de Castro, for P100, a pair of earrings priced at P200.

The court rendered the following judgment: "The rings and jewels delivered, as above stated, by the accused to Jose Tecjuco and Magdalena de Castro, are still the property of the said Ramona R. Evangelista, inasmuch as the prices received by the accused on account of the same were considerably lower than those authorized by said Ramona R. Evangelista. These rings and jewels should, therefore, be delivered immediately by the clerk of this court to the offended person, Ramona R. Evangelista."cralaw virtua1aw library

From this decision Jose Tejuco and Magdalena de Castro appealed, the former citing article 1724 of the Civil Code, and the latter, articles 256 and 253 of the Code of Commerce as having been violated.

This court considers that the two cases are similar in the circumstance that an agent or commissioner sold the goods received in commission for sale, for a price lower than that fixed by the principal; but they differ in the fact Jose Tejuco received from the agent, as a pledge, a thing that the latter was authorized to sell but not to pledge.

This question of giving as a pledge a thing that has been received only to be sold on commission, undoubtedly constitutes the crime of estafa, it being an act of misappropriation for private purposes of a telling received on commission, which produces the obligation to return the thing. (Art. 535, No. 5, Penal Code.) And it has been so held in various decisions of this court.

According to article 120 of the same code, as an effect of the crime of estafa, the thing misappropriated should be returned, although it be in the hands of a third person who received it in good faith.

Consequently, the decision of the trial judge ordering Jose Tejuco to return to the offended party, Ramona R. Evangelista, the two rings valued at P80 each, which were given him illegally as pledge for a loan of P25, is, according to the above-mentioned articles of the Penal Code, quite in accordance with the law.

With reference to the jewels which Juliana Torres was authorized to sell for P600 and P200, respectively, and which she sold for the half of the amounts fixed in the commission of sale, it is asked: Does the act of a commission agent in selling the goods received for less than the price fixed constitute the crime of estafa, or, does the act of the commission agent in misappropriating the amount realized by the sale, whether it is the price fixed or a lower one, constitute the crime of estafa?

If the act of selling the goods received on commission, at a price lower than the one fixed, constitutes the crime of estafa, then the owner of the thing sold has not lost its legal possession and it should be restored to him either by the guilty person or by the third person who, in an illegal manner, obtained the possession of the thing illegally sold; and in that case the articles of the Penal Code above-cited are applicable, and the thing misappropriated should be returned either by the guilty person or by the third person who unlawfully retains it in his possession as the object of an estafa committed by the one who sold it to him.

But, if the act in question does not constitute estafa, since the act of transferring a thing sold to a third party in such a manner, as it were between principal and agent, is not punished by any statute, although illegal on the part of the latter, yet after all it was not illegal as between the seller and the purchaser, and it is sufficient that it was not illegal (it not proceeding from a crime) in order that the acquisition he legal and the possession be just and lawful. The unlawful conduct of the seller in exceeding the powers of his commission does not affect the purchaser in good faith, who was not proven to have been aware of the illegality of such conduct.

In deciding this question, we hold: that the fact of an agent selling the thing received on commission for a lower price than the one fixed, does not constitute the crime of estafa, it not being penalized as such in the Penal Code; but the act of the commission agent in misappropriating the price obtained by the sale, whatever it may be, constitutes estafa, because it constitutes an appropriation for his private purposes of the money received on commission, or realized by the commission which he undertook.

The defendant being guilty of estafa for the money misappropriated, she must return the amount misappropriated, not the article from which the money was obtained.

Although the sale was improper, the thing sold passes to the purchaser, who thereby acquires as valid and transferable title thereto as though it were made by the owner or his duly authorized agent, reserving, however, rights of civil action, if any there be, as for example, that of quanti minoris. The restitution of the article can not be demanded on the grounds that the act constituted a crime which did not affect a transfer of ownership.

The crime did not consist in the sale of the thing, since the owner thereof delivered it to the seller for that purpose; but it consisted in the seller’s misappropriating the proceeds of the sale, which he had collected not for himself, but for his principal, and the former was not able to make such proceeds his property by any title sufficient to transfer to him the dominion over that money. The commission, which vas the only title that assisted him, obliged him to return the thing or to deliver the price thereof which takes the place of the thing after its sale; the commission was for one or the other of these two objects.

It follows that the accused, in the two cases of sale of jewels to Jose Tejuco and Magdalena de Castro, was property convicted as guilty of estafa for the misappropriation of the proceeds of the sale, and this amount she must either return, or indemnify the plaintiff therefor, the jewels themselves not being subject to restitution or indemnification, inasmuch as the sale thereof for a lower price than that fixed in the commission was not illegal nor did it constitute the crime of estafa.

The accused also sold another ring to Teodora Tejuco. With reference to this, the conclusion of the judgment is as follows: "The court decides and holds that the ring sold by the accused to Teodora Tejuco was sold at the price fixed for the same between the accused and the offended party, and that Teodora Tejuco has therefore acquired a legal title thereto, and the said ring should be immediately delivered to her by the clerk of this court." Ramona R. Evangelista appealed from this judgment, and this is the third appeal presented to this court.

The judgment appealed from is quite in accordance with the law. Teodora Tejuco’s title is certainly a valid and efficient one, namely, by an undeniable sale effected by an agent in accordance with the terms of her commission. And if the ring was lawfully transferred to the possession of the purchaser by a valid and efficient title, it can not be subject to restitution.

There is no defect in the title that would compel the purchaser to make restitution. If she legally acquired the article, she possesses it legally. And what is properly acquired is not subject to restoration.

The appellant says that it should be returned because it is the consequence of a crime; but there is an ambiguity or mistake in this. The possession is not the consequence of a crime; it is the effect of a valid and efficient contract. The crime was effected after the contract was executed, after the possession was lawfully and legitimately consummated, when the agent misappropriated the price obtained in the sale.

This price obtained, which was the object of the unlawful appropriation, was the subject-matter of the crime of estafa in accordance with article 535, No. 5, of the Penal Code; but not so the fact of having obtained such price from a legally executed sale.

Based on the grounds respectively set forth, we reverse the findings of the judgment appealed from by Jose Tejuco and Magdalena de Castro, in so far as they declare that the rings and jewels sold to said persons by Juliana Torres should not be returned [to the purchasers], and affirm the finding from which the offended party, Ramona R. Evangelista, has appealed. Without costs in this instance. So ordered.

Torres, Johnson, Carson and Tracey, JJ., concur.

WILLARD, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In my opinion, the judgment should be affirmed in its totality.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





March-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3457 March 2, 1908 - YU BUNUAN ET AL. v. ORESTES MARCAIDA

    010 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-4065 March 2, 1908 - BRUNO VILLANUEVA v. MAXIMA ROQUE

    010 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-3717 March 5, 1908 - FELIX VELASCO v. MARTIN MASA

    010 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. L-4237 March 5, 1908 - SERAFIN UY PIAOCO v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-4447 March 6, 1908 - MURPHY v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    010 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 4438 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO SUNGA, ET AL

    011 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-3811 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO BLANCO

    010 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-4026 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PASCUAL DULAY

    010 Phil 302

  • G.R. No. L-3880 March 9, 1908 - TEOPISTA CASTRO v. ANTONIO MARTINEZ GALLEGOS

    010 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 4131 March 9, 1908 - SERAPIO AVERIA v. LUCIO REBOLDERA

    010 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 4347 March 9, 1908 - JOSE ROGERS v. SMITH

    010 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 3279 March 11, 1908 - CITY OF MANILA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT ET AL.

    010 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. L-2129 March 12, 1908 - C. HEINZEN & CO. v. JAMES J. PETERSON, ET AL.

    010 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. L-3523 March 12, 1908 - CARIDAD MUGURUZA v. INT’L. BANKING CORP.

    010 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. L-3855 March 12, 1908 - EUFEMIA LORETO v. JULIO HERRERA

    010 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-3907 March 12, 1908 - ROMAN ABAYA v. DONATA ZALAMERO

    010 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-4085 March 12, 1908 - CARLS PALANCA TANGUINLAY v. FRANCISCO G. QUIROS

    010 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. L-4087 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. AMADOR BARRIOS

    010 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. L-4341 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS ROJO

    010 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. L-469 March 13, 1908 - T. H. PARDO DE TAVERA v. HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

    010 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-3848 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES GIMENO

    010 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 4146 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PETRA DE GUZMAN

    010 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. L-3951 March 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO GARCIA

    010 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-4169 March 14, 1908 - WILHELM BAUERMANN v. MAXIMA CASAS

    010 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-4205 March 16, 1908 - JULIAN CABAÑAS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    010 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. L-4077 March 17, 1908 - MACARIA MATIAS v. AGUSTIN ALVAREZ

    010 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-4127 March 17, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHARLES J. KOSEL

    010 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 4051 March 18, 1908 - CATALINA BERNARDO v. VICENTE GENATO

    011 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-3606 March 18, 1908 - IGNACIO ACASIO v. FELICISIMA ALBANO

    010 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-3699 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO CUSI

    010 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-4007 March 18, 1908 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. E. DIAZ & CO.

    010 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-4213 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. POTENCIANO REYES

    010 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-4233 March 18, 1908 - EXEQUIEL DELGADO v. MANUEL RIESGO

    010 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. L-4318 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GENEROSO ACADEMIA

    010 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. L-4147 March 19, 1908 - AGRIPINO DE LA RAMA v. CONCEPCION SANCHEZ, ET AL.

    010 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. L-4209 March 19, 1908 - INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP. v. PILAR CORRALES

    010 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. L-3904 March 20, 1908 - KO POCO v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. L-4104 March 20, 1908 - JAO IGCO v. W. MORGAN SHUSTER

    010 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. L-4155 March 20, 1908 - RUPERTO BELZUNCE v. VALENTINA FERNANDEZ

    010 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. L-4158 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO CARIÑO

    010 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-4196 March 20, 1908 - BENWIT ULLMANN v. FELIX ULLMANN and CO.

    010 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-4241 March 20, 1908 - AGUSTIN G. GAVIERES v. ADMIN. F THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF LUISA

    010 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-4399 March 20, 1908 - BENITO LEGARDA v. S. L. P. ROCHA Y RUIZDELGADO

    010 Phil 474

  • G.R. No. L-4436 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO CASTRO DI TIAN LAY

    010 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 4109 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JULIANA TORRES

    011 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-3968 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS LOPEZ

    010 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-3975 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL MARIN

    010 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-4167 March 21, 1908 - RAFAELA SALMO v. LUISA ICAZA

    010 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. L-4300 March 21, 1908 - MARIA BARRETTO v. LEONA REYES

    010 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-4324 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO OLLALES

    010 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-3550 March 23, 1908 - GO CHIOCO v. INCHAUSTI & CO.

    010 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-3780 March 23, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO SELLANO

    010 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. L-4132 March 23, 1908 - IN RE: MARIA SIASON Y MADRID DE LEDESMA

    010 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-4215 March 23, 1908 - LUCIO I. LIMPANGCO v. JUANA MERCADO

    010 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. L-4274 March 23, 1908 - JOSE ALANO v. JOSE BABASA

    010 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-4352 March 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO BAYOT

    010 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2674 March 25, 1908 - JOAQUIN JOVER Y COSTAS v. INSULAR GOV’T., ET AL.

    010 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-3357 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. A. W. PRAUTCH

    010 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. L-4012 March 25, 1908 - MAXIMO CORTES Y PROSPERO v. CITY OF MANILA

    010 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. L-4063 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARIÑO, ET AL.

    010 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. L-4091 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BERNABE BACHO

    010 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-4354 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO POBLETE

    010 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-4418 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES V. ESTRADA

    010 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-3339 March 26, 1908 - ROSA LLORENTE v. CEFERINO RODRIGUEZ

    010 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. L-3812 March 26, 1908 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV’T. CO. v. BARRY BALDWIN

    010 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-4100 March 26, 1908 - MARIA SINGAYAN v. CALIXTA MABBORANG

    010 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-4121 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO GARCIA

    010 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-4175 March 26, 1908 - A. W. BEAN v. B. W. CADWALLADER CO.

    010 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-4207 March 26, 1908 - JUAN VALLE v. SIXTO GALERA

    010 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. L-4265 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS PASCUAL

    010 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-4322 March 26, 1908 - INOCENTE MARTINEZ v. G. E. CAMPBELL

    010 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-4376 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SIP

    010 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. L-4420 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO CAGUIMBAL

    010 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 4160 March 26, 1908 - ANGEL GUSTILO, ET AL. v. FEDERICO MATTI, ET AL.

    011 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 3539 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    011 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 4372 March 27, 1908 - ENRIQUE M. BARRETTO v. CITY OF MANILA

    011 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. L-3612 March 27, 1908 - DOMINGO LIM v. JOSE LIM

    010 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-3762 March 27, 1908 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ALEJANDRO AMECHAZURRA

    010 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-4037 March 27, 1908 - LIM JAO LU v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. L-4200 March 27, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SEGUNDO SAMONTE

    010 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-4203 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL CRAME SY PANCO v. RICARDO GONZAGA

    010 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. L-4469A March 27, 1908 - FELIPE G. CALDERON v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-4017 March 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO MARIÑO

    010 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. L-3007 March 30, 1908 - ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITY OF BADOC

    010 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. L-4198 March 30, 1908 - JUAN MERCADO v. JOSE ABANGAN

    010 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-4222 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BASILIO CERNIAS

    010 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. L-4281 March 30, 1908 - JOSE GARRIDO v. AGUSTIN ASENCIO

    010 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-4377 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE GARCIA GAVIERES

    010 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. L-3469 March 31, 1908 - JOSEFA AGUIRRE v. MANUEL VILLABA

    010 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-4078 March 31, 1908 - CONCEPCION MENDIOLA v. NICOLASA PACALDA

    010 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. L-4257 March 31, 1908 - SIMON MOSESGELD SANTIAGO v. RUFINO QUIMSON ET AL.

    010 Phil 707