Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1915 > October 1915 Decisions > G.R. No. 10673 October 30, 1915

UNITED STATES v. BARTOLOME CH. VELOSO

032 Phil 126:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 10673. October 30, 1915. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BARTOLOME CH. VELOSO, Defendant-Appellant.

Jose Arnaiz for Appellant.

Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ESTAFA; SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF. — The information charges the accused with the estafa of certain goods from a business house, by the presentation of orders signed by his sister on the face of which, it is alleged, he increased the amount of the goods ordered by his sister, and thus induced the business house to turn over to him more goods than had been ordered by her. The evidence disclosing that the orders had not been falsified, and that if the accused was guilty of any misconduct in this connection, it consisted in unlawfully appropriating to his own use goods which had been lawfully delivered to him upon his sister’s order, Held: That the conviction of the accused of the crime with which he was charged in the information should be reversed.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


The theory of the prosecution, upon which the appellant in this case was convicted of the crime of estafa in the court below, is that he induced the Pacific Commercial Company of Cebu to turn over to him certain goods, by the presentation of two separate orders signed by his sister, Miss Veloso, in which he had changed-the wording without the knowledge of his sister, so as to make one of the orders read "18 barrels of cement" instead of "1 barrel," and so as to make the other order read "42 pieces of galvanized iron" instead of "2 pieces of galvanized iron."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is charged that by the use of these falsified orders, he induced the Pacific Commercial Company to turn over 17 barrels of cement and forty pieces of galvanized iron, which he appropriated to his own use.

The only pertinent evidence in support of these charges is the testimony of the sister of the accused. She did not deny that she signed the orders in question, but in a somewhat vague and indefinite statement in that connection she insisted that the cement order was originally executed for "1 barril de cemento" (one barrel of cement), and that it had been changed after leaving her hands so as to read "18 barriles de cemento" instead of "1 barril de cemento;" and that the order for "42 planchas de zinc" should have been filled out, as per her telephonic instructions, for "2 planchas" instead of "42 planchas."cralaw virtua1aw library

An examination of the cement order clearly discloses that, as executed by her, it was an order for more than one barrel of cement, and that her testimony on this, the most important fact at issue in the court below, cannot be accepted without reserve. The order was typewritten, and the spacing of the words and letters is such as to negative the suggestion that it could have been made to read "18 barriles de cemento" by the mere insertion of the figure 8 and the plural termination of the word "barril." In order to alter the order in the manner indicated by Miss Veloso it would have been necessary to erase the number "1" and the word "barril" and to rewrite them so as to leave space for the insertion of the number "8" and the plural termination "es" after the word "barril." But the condition of the typewritten order is such that we feel justified in holding that it is in the highest degree improbable that the word "barril" was or could have been erased and rewritten without leaving some trace of the change on the face of the order, and a careful scrutiny of the order discloses no trace whatever of such an erasure and change in its wording. On the contrary, the typewritten order appears to be perfectly regular and genuine on its face, and we are satisfied that the internal evidence furnished by the document itself is sufficient to raise at least a reasonable doubt as to the claim of Miss Veloso that it has been changed since it was signed by her.

As to the order for the galvanized iron we think we must hold that there is at least a reasonable doubt as to the truth of the charge that the accused filled out the order for "42 planchas de zinc" knowing that his sister’s telephonic order was for but "2 planchas de zinc." In its last analysis, the evidence on this charge rests substantially on the testimony of Miss Veloso as to the number of pieces of galvanized iron ordered by her over the telephone, and we do not think that, in the light of our conclusions as to the inaccuracy of similar testimony given by her in regard to the cement order, we would be justified in accepting her statements as to the galvanized iron as correct beyond a reasonable doubt.

On the whole record, we incline to the belief that if the accused was guilty of any misconduct in connection with the orders in question, it consisted not of the falsification of his sister’s orders, but of the appropriation of the goods to his own use, after he had lawfully procured them in her name from the Pacific Commercial Company. If our inferences in this regard are correct, the accused may have been guilty of an estafa of the goods after they came into his possession, but he cannot be convicted of the offense of the alleged estafa committed against the Pacific Commercial Company with which he was charged, and of which he was convicted in the court below.

While on the witness stand, Miss Veloso was evidently laboring under considerable excitement, and we think the record indicates that in testifying she was influenced in some degree by the not unnatural desire to shield her brother from the consequences of the misconduct of which she believed he was guilty, and at the same time to relieve herself from liability for payment for goods which, she alleges, were not delivered to her. However this may be, her testimony is too vague, confused and uncertain to sustain a finding as to the guilt of the defendant of the crime with which he is charged in the information, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judgment convicting the defendant and appellant of the offense charged in the information should be reversed with the costs of both instances de officio, and he should be acquitted of the offense and his bail exonerated. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Trent and Araullo, 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-1915 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9166 October 1, 1915

    CHAN YICK SAM v. PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF MLA.

    031 Phil 560

  • G.R. No. 10172 October 1, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. CASIANO BANZUELA, ET AL

    031 Phil 564

  • G.R. No. 10470 October 1, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. FILEMON BAYUTAS

    031 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 8936 October 2, 1915

    CONSUELO LEGARDA v. N. M. SALEEBY

    031 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 10340 October 2, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN ASUNCION

    031 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 9980 October 6, 1915

    GREGORIO ESCARIO v. ANTERO REGIS, ET AL

    031 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. 9694 October 7, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. EPIFANIO E. GABRIEL

    031 Phil 632

  • G.R. No. 10698 October 7, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. P. D. GARCES

    031 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. 9430 October 11, 1915

    SY YOC v. CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF MLA.

    031 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. 9615 October 14, 1915

    VICENTE GOLINGKO v. BRUNO MONJARDIN

    031 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 8373 October 15, 1915

    KUENZLE & STREIFF v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    031 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 9807 October 15, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. SO HAO KA

    031 Phil 649

  • G.R. Nos. 10053 & 10055 October 19, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL, ET AL.

    031 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. 10628 October 19, 1915

    JOHN R. SCHULTZ v. PEDRO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    032 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 10737 October 19, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. REMIGIO ARANIL

    032 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 9982 October 20, 1915

    MARGARITA GANZON v. MARIA LIMSON

    032 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. 10266 October 20, 1915

    MARGARITA VALENZUELA v. PEDRO UNSON

    032 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. 10503 October 20, 1915

    IRINEO DEL ROSARIO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 10576 October 20, 1915

    LEE JUA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. 10733 October 20, 1915

    TIN LIO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 32

  • G.R. No. 10858 October 20, 1915

    PEDRO M. DUARTE v. WALTER H. DADE

    032 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. 9692 October 21, 1915

    PEDRO TIAMSON v. MAGNO TIAMSON

    032 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 9969 October 26, 1915

    MODESTA BELTRAN v. FELICIANA DORIANO

    032 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. 9921 October 26, 1915

    JOSE VELASCO v. ROSENBERG’S, INC.

    032 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. 10386 October 26, 1915

    TE CHIN BOO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 10699 October 26, 1915

    TAN LIN JO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. 10815 October 26, 1915

    AMADO SING JING TALENTO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. 10076 October 28, 1915

    CITY OF MANILA v. FERNANDA FELISA COMALES, ET AL.

    032 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 10788 October 28, 1915

    VICENTE GÑILO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10828 October 28, 1915

    CANG KAI GUAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 10790 October 29, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. SIMON TAN CORTESO

    032 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 10102 October 30, 1915

    C. F. ARBENZ v. OTTO GMUR

    032 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. 10673 October 30, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. BARTOLOME CH. VELOSO

    032 Phil 126