ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10649 March 1, 1916 - BENITO AFRICA v. KURT W. GRONKE

    034 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 10838 March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 11148 March 1, 1916 - LIM BUN SU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10563 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BONIFACIO

    034 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 11262 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ

    034 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 7676 March 3, 1916 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. ESTEBAN ARCENAS

    034 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10265 March 3, 1916 - EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN v. ISIDORO SANTOS

    034 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10918 March 4, 1916 - WILLIAM FRESSEL ET AL. v. MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & COMPANY

    034 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10971 March 4, 1916 - BEAUMONT & TENNEY v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    034 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 11216 March 6, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    034 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 8473 March 7, 1916 - SANTIAGO YASON v. JULIO MAGSAKAY

    034 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 10437 March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO

    034 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 10729 March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 10793 March 17, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO

    034 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 11196 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO YUMUL

    034 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 11321 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SY BUN KUE

    034 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 10051 March 9, 1916 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.

    034 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11115 March 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE YU TUICO

    034 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10297 March 11, 1916 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

    034 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 8135 March 13, 1916 - FRED J. LEGARE ET AL. v. ANTONIA CUERQUES

    034 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 10449 March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL

    034 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8092 March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL.

    034 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 10578 March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO

    034 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 11000 March 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MENDIETA

    034 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9497 March 15, 1916 - SIMONA GALICIA v. TEODORA NAVARRO

    034 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 11467 March 15, 1916 - NG HIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 10462 March 16, 1916 - ANDREA DUMASUG v. FELIX MODELO

    034 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 9164 March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC

    034 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 10354 March 17, 1916 - FELIPE DORADO v. AGRIPINO VIRIÑA

    034 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 10718 March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER

    034 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 11464 March 17, 1916 - VICTOR BIUNAS v. BENITO MORA

    034 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 8954 March 21, 1916 - DOROTEA CABANG v. MARTIN DELFINADO

    034 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9340 March 21, 1916 - MARGARITO PENALOSA LO INTONG v. ISIDORA JAMITO ET AL.

    034 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 10889 March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ

    034 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 11098 March 21, 1916 - CO PAIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916 - E. MERRITT v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    034 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 8979 March 22, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. PROVICIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA ET AL.

    034 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 10978 March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO

    034 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 11315 March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL

    034 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 8941 March 23, 1916 - GUILLERMO VELOSO v. LORENZO BECERRA

    034 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 9984 March 23, 1916 - PETRONA JAVIER v. LAZARO OSMEÑA

    034 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10769 March 23, 1916 - RAYMUNDO MELLIZA v. F. W. TOWLE

    034 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 11119 March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 8642 March 24, 1916 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. ANTONIO BABASA ET AL.

    034 Phil 354

  • G.R. Nos. 8765 & 10920 March 24, 1916 - PEDRO DIMAGIBA v. ANSELMO DIMAGIBA

    034 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 8806 March 24, 1916 - ALEJANDRO BALDEMOR v. EUSEBIA MALANGYAON

    034 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 9919 March 24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL.

    034 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 9974 March 24, 1916 - CANG YUI v. HENRY GARDENER

    034 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 10560 March 24, 1916 - IN RE: Tan Po Pic v. JUAN L. JAVIER

    034 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 10624 March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 10663 March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11384 March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 10045 March 25, 1916 - PHIL. RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. NOLTING

    034 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10777 March 25, 1916 - ALEJANDRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN

    034 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11157 March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO

    034 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 10510 March 27, 1916 - LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    034 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 10580 March 27, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. MAXIMINO PATERNO

    034 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 11607 March 27, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS

    034 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 9845 March 28, 1916 - J. C. RUYMANN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    034 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 10054 March 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL

    034 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 10264 March 28, 1916 - CHOA TEK HEE v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    034 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 10595 March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL.

    034 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 10810 March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA

    034 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10902 March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA

    034 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 11156 March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO

    034 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 11363 March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 11366 March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY

    034 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9550 March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO.

    034 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 10019 March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO.

    034 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS Ex Rel. MUN. OF CARDONA v. MUN. OF BINANGONAN ET AL.

    034 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10474 March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO

    034 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 10493 March 29, 1916 - FREDERICK L. COHEN v. BENGUET COMMERCIAL CO. (Ltd.)

    034 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 10751 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA CABALLERO Y APARICI

    034 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 10778 March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    034 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 11008 March 29, 1916 - MARIANO REAL ET AL. v. CESAREO MALLARI

    034 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11068 March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT

    034 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 11274 March 29, 1916 - RAFAELA DALMACIO v. ALBERTO BARRETTO

    034 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 11585 March 29, 1916 - PABLO PERLAS v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    034 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 8697 March 30, 1916 - M. GOLDSTEIN v. ALIJANDRO ROCES ET AL.

    034 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 8988 March 30, 1916 - HARTFORD BEAUMONT v. MAURO PRIETO, ET AL.

    041 Phil 670

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 10449   March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL<br /><br />034 Phil 227

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 10449. March 13, 1916. ]

    THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL, Defendant-Appellant.

    J. C. Hixson for Appellant.

    Attorney-General Avancena for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. ESTAFA; ARTICLES DELIVERED FOR SALE ON COMMISSION. — It cannot be affirmed in a complaint that the accused secured various articles of jewelry to sell on commission by means of deceit and fraud when the record clearly shows that the principal delivered them to him voluntarily for that purpose.

    2. ID.; ID. — The crime of estafa is not committed by the failure to return the things received for sale on commission, or to deliver their value, but, as this class of crime is defined by law, by misappropriating or converting money or goods received on commission. Delay in the fulfillment of a commission or in the delivery of the sum on such account received only involves civil liability. So long as money that a person is under obligation to deliver is not demanded of him, and he fails to deliver it for having wrongfully disposed of it, there is no estafa, whatever be the cause of the debt. If the record shows by the testimony of the principal that the entire proceeds of the sale on commission were paid to him in August, 1914, and that the complaint was filed on September 29, 1914, it is evident that when the latter was presented the obligation was already extinguished, and the principal had no right of action, either civil or criminal, against the commission agent.


    D E C I S I O N


    ARELLANO, C.J. :


    Defending signed the following document in behalf of the party herein who claims to have been aggrieved:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Iloilo, P. I., August 12, 1913. — I, Aclemandos Bleibel, of age, a native of Syria and resident of Iloilo, declare that I have received from Messrs. Juan Ysmael & Co., Iloilo, the following articles to sell on commission, and as soon as I dispose of any of the said articles I am obliged immediately to remit the value thereof to Messrs. Ysmael & Co., in Iloilo. — I assume all risks, whether from fire, typhoon, or other accidents, and furthermore I am obliged to return the articles hereinafter mentioned, or to pay their value, at the moment they are demanded of me by said Ysmael & Co. — (Here follows the list of the jewelry, all earrings, of a total value of P597.90, — 10 per cent commission, P59.79: total, P538.11. — The total sum for the earrings: P538.11 net). In witness whereof, I sign the present document. — (sgd.) Aclemandos Bleibel. — (The signatures of the witnesses follow.)" (Exhibit A.)

    The accused proceeded to Leyte, the record does not show on what date, and took up his residence in Abuyog. On February 21, 1914, Ysmael & Co. addressed the following letter to Aclemandos Bleibel:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "DEAR SIR: We hereby demand of you immediately to return the following articles which you received from us under contract of August 12, 1913, to sell on commission (a list of them follows), or their value, amounting to P538.11." (Exhibit B.)

    This letter was registered in the Iloilo post-office, but the date of the registration stamp does not clearly appear, it being blurred. (Exhibit C.) Neither does the record show when the letter was received in Leyte by the addressee, for, as defendant testified, it was his brother who received it in Tacloban, Leyte, and, until May, 1914, defendant had no knowledge of the demand contained in the letter. The positive date given in the record is May of said year. An answer was not received until August, and on September 29, 1914, the present proceedings were commenced against defendant.

    The trial opened on November 19, 1914. James Hamady, manager of the firm of Ysmael & Co., of Iloilo, testified that the net value of the goods delivered on commission to defendant was P538.11; that this amount had already been totally paid to witness by Bleibel before the latter was arrested by reason of these proceedings, but after he had been arrested the first time. Upon cross-examination by the defense, he also stated that defendant was an employee of the firm at a monthly salary of P100 and had a balance in his favor of P143, more or less.

    "Question: And did you not pay him this sum before proceedings were brought against him? — Answer: No, because he did not ask it of me. He was absent.

    "The court: I have understood that you owed the accused P143 at the time your complaint was filed. — A. Yes, sir.

    "Q. So that what the accused owes you is a little more or less than P400. — A. Yes, sir."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Two arrests are mentioned: One made in Tacloban, Leyte, in August, 1914, when defendant immediately paid the whole amount; and the other, in Iloilo, in November, 1914. This court finds nothing in the record to evidence the first arrest. The record contains only the following proceedings: The complaint, dated September 29, 1914; the arraignment of the accused on November 19; his plea of not guilty; the judgment of the same date, November 19, 1914; its notification to defendant on the same date; the notice of appeal there-from; the bond given in behalf of the accused by two bondsmen, on the same date of November 19, 1914; the Exhibits A, B, and C, and the testimony of James Hamady and that of the defendant. Nor do we understand how such arrest came to be made in August, 1914, when the complaint had not yet been filed, for it was not presented until September 29, 1914.

    This court cannot consider facts that do not appear in the record. What the record shows, by the principal’s testimony, is that the proceeds from the sale on commission were totally paid to him in August, 1914, and that the complaint was filed on September 29, 1914. When the latter was filed, the obligation contained in Exhibit A had already been extinguished; and no action whatever, either civil or criminal, lay in behalf of the so-called offended party by reason of the contract Exhibit A. The complaint should have been dismissed.

    The averment of the complaint, to wit, that the accused deceitfully and fraudulently took and received from Juan Ysmael & Co. various pieces of jewelry to the value of P538.11, has in no wise been proven; what the evidence does show is that the principal voluntarily delivered them to the commission agent. The complaint recites that after the accused had received said jewelry he neither returned it nor delivered the value thereof to Juan Ysmael & Co. But the failure to return or deliver the value of things given for sale on commission, after they have once been received, does not constitute the crime of estafa, unless they have been sold and the commission agent has misapplied or appropriated the value thereof. The delay in the fulfillment of a trust or in the delivery of the sum received on such account only involves civil liability. (Decisions of November 29, 1886, and December 23, 1890.) So long as a sum of money which a person is obliged to deliver is not demanded of him, and he fails to deliver it on account of his having wrongfully disposed of it, there is no estafa, whatever be the consideration for the debt. (Decision of November 21, 1905.)

    We do not find even one single thing to support the truth of such assertions. What is fully proven is that prior to the filing of the complaint on September 29, 1914, defendant had already paid his principal the entire value of the goods sold on commission, to wit, P538.11.

    The principal had no right to avail himself of a criminal action to recover P538.11 from defendant so long as he was owing the defendant P143 for salary on the date of the filing of the complaint, without first having made a settlement of accounts. This would have disclosed, as the lower court remarked, not that the accused was then owing P538.11, but about P400, or, to be exact, a balance of P395.11. It is a well-settled rule of law that no estafa is committed by an insurance company’s agent who does not return the balance which the company believes him to be owing it, if he proves that the company does not credit him with moneys to which he is entitled. (Decision of June 28, 1906.) The same rule was laid down in the case of United States v. Santiago (27 Phil. Rep., 408).

    It has been fully proven by the evidence of record brought before us: (1) that the total value of the jewelry delivered by the principal to the commission agent, the defendant, was paid to the principal by the latter in August, 1914; (2) that the complaint for estafa was filed on September 29, 1914; (3) that the commission agent, the defendant, did not appropriate to himself nor divert to his own use any money whatever obtained as commission; on the contrary, the record clearly shows that before the complaint was filed he had extinguished his civil obligation to pay the value of the jewelry he had received for sale on commission; (4) that, consequently, he did not commit the crime of estafa charged to him; (5) that the rule laid down in various decisions, to wit, that, once the crime of estafa has been committed reimbursement of the sum embezzled is no bar to a conviction for the crime already consummated, is not applicable to the case at bar, inasmuch as in the present instance not only has no crime whatever of estafa been committed, but also, according to the record brought before us, there was no intention to commit such a crime. Hence, necessarily, the judgment appealed from, in which defendant was sentenced to five months and eleven days of arresto mayor and to pay the costs, cannot be affirmed.

    Neither can it be affirmed in so far as it orders the bondsmen of the accused to pay the costs incurred by the latter’s arrest, and declares the bond confiscated.

    The bondsmen gave their bond on November 19, 1914. On November 19, 1914, the case came to trial. On November 19, 1914, defendant was present and testified at the trial. Nowhere in the record does it appear that defendant was arrested, nor what was the cause of the bondsmen’s liability. Moreover, the bondsmen are not included in the complaint; no action whatever was instituted against them; they were in no manner parties to the action; there is not a single word against them in the record; and, therefore, they were not heard, nor was there any reason to hear them at trial, for no charge at all was entered against them. The sentence contained in the judgment is absolutely contrary to law.

    The judgment appealed from is reversed in all its parts, with the costs of both instances de officio. So ordered.

    Torres, Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 10449   March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL<br /><br />034 Phil 227




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED