Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1911 > February 1911 Decisions > G.R. No. L-6042 February 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE P. DE CASTRO, ET AL.

018 Phil 417:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-6042. February 21, 1911.]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE P. DE CASTRO and VICTOR V. ARAGON, Defendants. — JOSE P. DE CASTRO, Appellant.

A. Cruz Herrera, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Villamor, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. "ESTAFA;" SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. — The accused, about the 8th of July, 1909, approached a clerk in the employ of S. & Co. of Manila, during business hours, and represented to the said clerk that he was the owner of a cargo of 527 sacks of copra on board the steamer Lucena, shipped by one Narciso from the Province of Tayabas, and that he was the said Narciso. The clerk, believing such representation to be true, advanced to the accused, upon the said cargo, the sum of 4,000. He also presented to the clerk a bill of lading, apparently in due form, but which was false and fictitious. Held, That the accused was properly convicted of the crime of estafa.


D E C I S I O N


MORELAND, J.:


This is an appeal by the accused Jose P. de Castro from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, Hon. James C. Jenkins presiding, convicting the appellant and Victor V. Aragon of the crime of estafa, and sentencing each of them to 3 years and 6 months of presidio correccional, with the accessory penalties provided in article 58 of the Penal Code, and to pay a fine of 3,000 pesetas and one-half the costs, together with subsidiary imprisonment in case of failure to pay said fine. The judgment also required the accused to refund to W. F. Stevenson & Co. P2,700 as indemnification, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of failure to pay the same.

At the opening of the trial the accused Victor V. Aragon pleaded guilty.

On or about the 8th day of July, 1909, V. C. Rissich, a clerk of the firm of W. F. Stevenson & Co., during business hours, was approached by the accused Jose P. de Castro, who, by his representations, induced Rissich to believe that a cargo of 527 sacks of copra was on board the steamer Lucena in Manila Bay, having been sent by one H. Narciso from the Province of Tayabas to one Pedro Narciso in Manila, and that he, Castro, was the said Pedro Narciso. Believing that these representations were true, and that the accused Castro was the owner of said cargo of copra, Rissich, at the request of the said Castro, advanced as a payment upon said cargo the sum of P4,000. During the course of these representations the accused Castro presented to said Rissich a bill of lading of said cargo, completely made out and properly signed. This bill of lading entirely corroborated the verbal statements of the accused to Rissich, showing upon its face the facts as the accused had related them. This bill of lading was wholly false and fictitious. The verbal representations made by Castro were wholly false and without any basis of fact whatever. The bill of lading was manufactured and falsified by the accused. As a witness on his own behalf he admitted having made the representations above mentioned and having manufactured or assisted in manufacturing said bill of lading. He asserted, however, by way of defense, that he was acting entirely in good faith, alleging that his coaccused, Aragon, who was a good friend of his, had told him that he, Aragon, had two uncles, H. Narciso and Pedro Narciso, and the one had sent to the other the said cargo of copra and that the same was on board the steamer Lucena then lying in Manila Bay, and that the consignee, Pedro Narciso, not being able to reach Manila within a prescribed time, had authorized said Aragon to make the transaction in question for him. The accused Castro further asserted that Aragon asked him to make these misrepresentations as a special favor to him because he, Aragon, was unable to consummate the transaction with W. F. Stevenson & Co. as he was indebted to them in a considerable sum of money.

It is apparent that there is in really no dispute as to the main facts of this case. Substantially the whole defense of the accused is based upon a lack of criminal intention, his counsel asserting that having acted entirely in good faith and upon the honest belief that the representations that he was making were true, he had no intention whatever of injuring anybody or of unlawfully depriving any person of his property.

The learned trial court found himself entirely unable to believe this story, stating in the opinion which forms the basis of his judgment of conviction that the defendant is a man of sufficient intelligence to understand right from wrong, he being a man of education, experience and capacity; and that even if he were deceived at the beginning, he must necessarily have learned the truth before the fraud was consummated, at which time, if he had been an honest man, he would have denounced his friend and prevented the fraud. Moreover, asserts the learned trial court, even if he did not find out the fraud before it was consummated, he certainly must have learned it between the time of its consummation and the date of his arrest, a period extending over about two months, at which time he was morally and legally under the obligation to denounce the transaction and to save the situation as far as he could. He did nothing of the kind; but, rather, took portion of the money thus obtained and proceeded to spend it in riotous living. These circumstances, taken in connection with the fact that the accused Castro, when arrested, at first denied having taken any part whatever in the transaction, indicated to the learned trial court that he had full knowledge of the aim and purpose thereof.

Upon the proofs we have no doubt whatever of the guilt of the Appellant. The learned trial court properly and correctly weighed the evidence. The transaction was a bold and criminal fraud, practiced in a high-handed manner, and fully deserved the condemnation which it received at the hands of the court below.

The information alleges and the proofs show that the appellant in this case committed two distinct crimes, one of estafa, defined and punished under subdivision 1, article 535, of the Penal Code, and the crime of falsification of a private document, defined and punished in article 304 of said code. Inasmuch, however, as the one crime was a necessary means of committing the other, the accused can not be punished for both offenses. Under the provisions of article 89 of the Penal Code, he must be punished in the maximum degree of the more serious crime. Falsification of a private document is the more serious of the two inasmuch as it is punished not only by presidio correccional in its minimum and medium degrees, as estafa is punished, but also by a fine of from 625 to 6,250 pesetas. The maximum degree of presidio correccional in its minimum and medium degrees is from 2 years 11 months and 11 days to 4 years and two months. The penalty imposed by the learned trial court is, therefore, within the law.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed, with cost against the Appellant.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson and Trent, 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






February-1911 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5515 February 1, 1911 - LEVY HERMANOS v. PEDRO A. PATERNO

    018 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. L-5724 February 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JESUS BALMORI, ET AL.

    018 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-6254 February 7, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO NAVARRO, ET AL.

    018 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-6302 February 7, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MIGUEL VILLANO

    018 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-5523 February 10, 1911 - ANGUSTIA SALDIVAR, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF TALISAY

    018 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. L-5995 February 10, 1911 - LUCIO HERRERA v. IGNACIO NEIS, ET AL.

    018 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. L-6093 February 10, 1911 - JOAQUIN CELIS v. WARDEN OF BILIBID

    018 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-6277 February 10, 1911 - SYDNEY D. SUGAR v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    018 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-6294 February 10, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. LEONCIO BALLENA

    018 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. L-5487 February 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN PICO

    018 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-5977 February 11, 19111

    UNITED STATES v. PEDRO PACHECO

    018 Phil 399

  • G.R. No. L-5687 February 18, 1911 - FORTUNATO R. SALINDON v. FELIPE ZAMORA

    018 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. L-5879 February 18, 1911 - IN RE: RAMON E. SANTOS

    018 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. L-3817 February 21, 1911 - GO CHANGJO v. SANTIAGO ROLDAN SY-CHANGJO

    018 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-5063 February 21, 1911 - FELISA M. PEREZ v. CORNELIO MELLIZA, ET AL.

    018 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. L-5903 February 21, 1911 - MAXIMO CALAVIA, ET AL. v. LEONCIA CALAVIA

    018 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-6029 February 21, 1911 - BASILIA AHAG v. TELESFORO CABILING

    018 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. L-6042 February 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE P. DE CASTRO, ET AL.

    018 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. L-6320 February 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO CARALIPIO, ET AL.

    018 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. L-6368 February 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO DIVINO

    018 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-5799 February 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS H. ACEBEDO

    018 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. L-5739 February 24, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO ESTACIO

    018 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. L-6369 February 24, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. FLORENCIO TACUBANZA

    018 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. L-6385 February 24, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CIRIACO LEVENTE

    018 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-6324 February 25, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE QUEBENGCO

    018 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. L-5971 February 27, 1911 - BEATRIZ NERA, ET AL. v. NARCISA RIMANDO

    018 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-6116 February 27, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDORO ALIAS

    018 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. L-6404 February 27, 191

    UNITED STATES v. MAGDALENA ESQUEJO

    018 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-6503 February 27, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CHIONG SONGCO

    018 Phil 459