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
 

   
November-1941 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 48348 November 1, 1941 - AQUINO DEL ROSARIO v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, ET AL.

    073 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 48524 November 1, 1941 - MANILA HOTEL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. MANILA HOTEL COMPANY, ET AL.

    073 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 48662 November 6, 1941 - JESUS B. LAVA v. JOSE LOPEZ VITO, ET AL.

    073 Phil 390

  • G.R. No. 48306 November 7, 1941 - PEDRO L. GALANG v. P. M. ENDENCIA, ET AL.

    073 Phil 399

  • G.R. No. 48415 November 7, 1941 - INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, INC., ET AL.

    073 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 48458 November 7, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FIDEL FORTUNO

    073 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 48683 November 8, 1941 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FAR EASTERN BROADCASTING

    073 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 48183 November 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO A. SCHNECKENBURGER, ET AL.

    073 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. 48456 November 12, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. NGO CHAY

    073 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 47813 November 18, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SIMEON ANTONIO

    073 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 48320 November 18, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JUAN CACHERO

    073 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 48459 November 18, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FIDEL FORTUNO

    073 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 47805 November 19, 1941 - CONCEPCION PIÑON v. CONSUELO ZAFRA, ET AL.

    073 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. 48101 November 22, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE NABORA

    073 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 48123 November 22, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANACLETO VINEDA

    073 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 48395 November 22, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ALEJANDRO ENCARNACION

    073 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 48554 November 22, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. BILAANS S. SUNI

    073 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. 47688 November 24, 1941 - BASILIA CABRERA v. PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC.

    073 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. 47988 November 24, 1941 - H. S. FENWICK v. JOAQUlN PARDO DE TAVERA

    073 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. 48641 November 24, 1941 - PEDRO GALLEGO v. VICENTE VERRA

    073 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 47887 November 25, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CARMEN DE UMALI

    073 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. 48125 November 25, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FELIX CABADDU

    073 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. 47357 November 26, 1941 - SALVADOR E. IMPERIAL v. CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

    073 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 47775 November 26, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO FIGUEROA

    073 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. 47976 November 26, 1941 - A. P. SEVA Y OTROS v. PABLO S. RIVERA

    073 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. 48215 November 26, 1941 - PARSONS HARDWARE CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    073 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 48754 November 26, 1941 - EMILIO V. REYES v. APOLONIO R. DIAZ

    073 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. 47804 November 27, 1941 - JUAN CASTILLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    073 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. 48147 November 27, 1941 - CLARO CASTRO, ET AL. v. ROSENDO REYES

    073 Phil 492

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 47804   November 27, 1941 - JUAN CASTILLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. <br /><br />073 Phil 489

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 47804. November 27, 1941.]

    JUAN CASTILLO (alias JUAN DE CASTILLO), Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW; "ESTAFA" ; ADMINISTRATOR’S BOND; SALE BY SURETY OF PROPERTY GIVEN AS BOND. — By executing a bond exhibiting transfer certificate of title a surety in effect guaranteed with the land described in the certificate of title his obligation as surety, for it was upon the strength of his ownership of such land that the bond executed by him was approved. Good faith on his part, therefore, requires that he should not dispose of the land before the cancellation of the bond, without the permission of the court. A contrary view would render the penal sanction of the law ineffective.

    2. ID.; ID.; DAMAGES AS ESSENTIAL ELEMENT. — It is well settled that damage is an essential element of estafa.


    D E C I S I O N


    ABAD SANTOS, J.:


    The petitioner Juan Castillo was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija of the crime of estafa under article 316, par. 6, of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced to 2 months and 1 day of arresto mayor. This judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

    The question presented is whether, upon the facts found by the Court of Appeals, the petitioner was guilty of the crime charged against him.

    It appears that in the intestate proceedings of the deceased Juan Castillo, civil case No. 6463 of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, the petitioner executed a bond in the sum of P1,000.00 as one of the sureties for the administrator appointed by the court. In order to qualify as such surety, he exhibited Transfer Certificate of Title No. 9683 issued in his name and covering a parcel of land. Before the cancellation of said bond and without judicial authority, he sold the land to Felipe V. Estrella for the sum of P450.00.

    Petitioner now contends (1) that as the property sold by him was not specifically pledged in the bond which he signed as surety, he could not rightly be convicted under article 136, par. 6, of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes the sale by a surety of "real property or properties with which he guaranteed the fulfillment" of his obligation; and (2) that as there was no finding of actual damage, his conviction for the crime of estafa cannot stand.

    1. The first contention is without merit. It was to prove his solvency and thus qualify as a surety that petitioner exhibited Transfer Certificate of Title No. 9683. By such act, he in effect guaranteed with the land described in the certificate of title his obligation as surety, for it was upon the strength of his ownership of such land that the bond executed by him was approved. Good faith on his part, therefore, requires that he should not dispose of the land before the cancellation of the bond, without the permission of the court. A contrary view would render the penal sanction of the law ineffective.

    2. There is no express finding in the judgment under review that the sale made by the petitioner resulted in any actual damage to the estate of the deceased Juan Castillo, as alleged in the information. Indeed, the damage, if any, is merely potential and speculative. Apart from the circumstance that the petitioner might have other properties with which to satisfy any obligation that could attach to him under the bond, there was the probability that the other surety would make good whatever damage for which the administrator might be held liable. It is well settled that damage is an essential element of estafa. (U. S. v. Mendezona, 2 Phil. 353; U. S. v. Berry, 5 Phil. 370; U. S. v. Leaño, 6 Phil. 368; U. S. v. Rivera, 23 Phil. 383.) With particular reference to article 316 of the Revised Penal Code, under which the petitioner was prosecuted, it is noteworthy that the penalty prescribed is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than three times such value; and such fine is not merely an alternative penalty. It seems clear that the article contemplates the existence of damage as an element of the offense therein penalized. The case of U. S. v. Goyenechea, 8 Phil. 117, and U. S. v. Malong, 36 Phil. 821, cited by the prosecution in support of the theory that the disturbance of property rights of the complainant constitutes real and actual damage, are not in point. The properties involved in those cases belonged to the offended parties, while in the present case there could be no disturbance of the property rights belonging to the estate of the deceased Juan Castillo, because the land sold by the petitioner was his own, and not of the estate.

    The judgment under review is reversed, and the petitioner acquitted, with costs de oficio. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Diaz, Moran and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 47804   November 27, 1941 - JUAN CASTILLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. <br /><br />073 Phil 489


    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