Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1914 > March 1914 Decisions > G.R. No. 8579 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. RUPERTO T. SANTIAGO

027 Phil 408:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 8579. March 30, 1914. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUPERTO T. SANTIAGO, Defendant-Appellant.

Escaler & Salas for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Harvey for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; VENUE; PLACE OF TRIAL; CRIME COMMITTED PARTLY IN ONE PROVINCE AND PARTLY IN ANOTHER. — In this jurisdiction, where the strict common-law rules touching the findings of indictments have no controlling influence, offenses committed partly in one province and partly in another, that is to say, where some acts materials and essential to the crime and requisite to its consummation occur in one province and in some in another, are triable in either province, the appropriate courts in each province having concurrent jurisdiction of such offenses.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


The appellant in this case was convicted of the crime of estafa, and sentenced to five months of arresto mayor and to pay the costs of the proceedings.

The commission of the alleged offense is charged in the information as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That during or about the month of April, 1912, in the municipality of Iloilo, Province of Iloilo, Philippine Islands, the said accused, being an agent of The West Coast Life Insurance Company, and entrusted with collecting on policies of said company, did wilfully, maliciously, and criminally, with abuse of confidence and through deceit, collect from Felix Golez the sum of one hundred sixteen pesos and sixty-two centavos (P116.62), by means of delivery of the provisional policy No. 889A; and instead of turning in to the treasury of said company the amount so collected the said accused did appropriate the same to his own personal use, in fraud and to the prejudice of the said West Coast Life Insurance Company; an act committed in violation of the law."cralaw virtua1aw library

The first question raised on this appeal goes to the jurisdiction of the trial court over the offense charged in the information. Relying on the case of the United States v. Cardell (23 Phil. Rep., 207), it is urged that the offense as charged was triable in the Court of First Instance of Manila and not in Iloilo, it appearing that under defendant’s contract with the insurance company, the premiums collected by the defendant were payable at its office in Manila. In that case, wherein the allegations of the information were substantially similar to those in the case at bar, we held that the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction of the offense charged, on the ground that under the contract by the defendant with the insurance company, the insurance premiums collected by him in Cebu were payable in the offices of the company in the city of Manila, and that the offense charged — that is to say, the failure to remit these premiums — was triable in Manila because it was consummated by the failure of the defendant in that case to turn over the funds at the office of the company in Manila. We did not hold in the former case, however, that the Court of First Instance of Cebu, where the premiums were collected, did not have concurrent jurisdiction with that of Manila; and we are of opinion that offenses such as that committed partly in one province and partly in another — that is to say, where some acts material and essential to the crime and requisite to its consummation occur in one province and some in another — the case may be tried in either.

In the case at bar the accused is charged with having collected is charged with having collected the premium upon a certain policy in the Province of Iloilo and there and then appropriating the amount collected to his own use instead of turning it over to the company at its offices in Manila in accordance with the terms of his contract.

In accordance with our ruling in the case of the United States v. Cardell (supra), the offense, if committed, was partly committed in the city of Manila and partly in the Province of Iloilo. The failure to turn over the funds to the insurance company in Manila was an act material and essential to the crime, and requisite to its consummation. So, also, the alleged collection and appropriation of the premium in the Province of Iloilo and the failure to remit it to the company in Manila in accordance with the terms of the alleged contract was an act material and essential to the crime and requisite to its consummation. The offense having been committed partly in the Province of Iloilo and partly in the city of Manila we are of opinion that the Court of First Instance of that province had concurrent jurisdiction with that of Manila over the offense thus committed.

Under the strict rules of the common law, based upon the rule that indictments could be found in that county only in which the crime has been committed, it was at one time doubtful whether a crime committed partly in one county and partly in another could be punished in either. (Bacon Abr. Tit. Indictment; 4 Bl. Comm. 303; 1 Chitty Crim. L. 178.) Though it was held that the proper view was that such an offense indictable in the county wherein it is consummated, it is now very generally provided by statute that where crimes are committed partly in one county and partly in another, the accused is indictable in either, and it has been held that the accused shall be entitled to a trial in the county where the crime was committed. (Smith v. State, 42 Florida, 605.)

Section 6 of General Orders No. 58 provides that: "A complaint or information is sufficient if it shows: . . . 4. That the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the court and is triable therein."cralaw virtua1aw library

As hereinbefore indicated, we are of opinion that in this jurisdiction, where the strict common-law rules touching the finding of indictments have no controlling influence, offenses committed partly in one province and partly in another, that is to say, where some acts material and essential to the crime and requisite to its consummation occur in one province and some in another, are triable in either province, the appropriate courts in each province having concurrent jurisdiction of such offenses under the provisions of the above cited section of General Orders. 58.

No witnesses were called by the prosecution, but certain documents marked, "Prosecution’s Exhibits A, B, and C" were introduced without objection, and the defense admitted that the accused had collected the sum of P116.62 mentioned in the information and that he had not turned it over to the complainant company. Exhibit A is the formal appointment and contract of defendant as an agent of the insurance company. Exhibits B and C are reports of the defendant made to the company during the term of his employment as its agent.

The evidence for the defense is summarized by the Solicitor-General in his brief in this Court, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The defendant, being duly sworn, testified in his own behalf substantially as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I am 38 years of age, married, clerk, and a resident of Iloilo. I was formerly an agent of the West Coast Life Insurance Company, and while acting as such wrote a policy for Adriano Hernandez, for which I was entitled to a commission of P101.67 for the first half year and an additional P101.67 at the time of the payment of the second semiannual premium. I did not collect the premium on this policy and have not received any commission upon it. I also wrote a policy for Cecilio Dayot, for which I am entitled to P51.48 commission and which the company has not yet paid to me. The regular agent of the company , Jose Maria Igpuara, told me that he had collected the premiums on the above-mentioned policies. I also wrote policies for Messrs. Escarilla and Peralta, and Luisa Caraza upon which Mr. Igpuara collected the premiums. I received certain advances from Igpuara upon these policies, but have not been paid in full. I collected the premium on the policy written for Luis Golez, but have not turned it over to the company; Exhibit D is the receipt I gave him for the amount collected. The premiums on the Golez policy was P116.62 and my commission thereon was P64.14; and as the company had been owing me P58 for some time I did not turn over the P52.48 due the company upon this policy. The company is indebted to me in the sum of P208 upon policies written by me. Some of this work was done prior to my appointment as agent of the West Coast Life Insurance Company, but I had an understanding with Mr. Calvo, the company’s general agent. Mr. Calvo did not settle with me in full for the work I did for him prior to my appointment as agent of the company, and told me to keep the first premium that I collected. My contract of employment with the West Coast Life Insurance Company calls for the immediate turning over of all premiums collected to the company’s general agent. The practice of the agents here, however, has been to retain the commissions and send the balance of the premiums collected to the Manila office. Mr. Northcott was the general agent to whom I should report and send premiums after I had signed the contract with the company.

"Jose Maria Igpuara, being duly sworn, testified substantially as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I am 28 years of age, married, life insurance agent, and a resident of Iloilo. I am an agent of the West Coast Insurance Company, and as such know that the premiums on the policies belonging to Messrs. Hernandez, Dayot, and Golez, and Luisa Caraza have been paid. The defendant was employed by Calvo while the latter was the agent of the West Coast Life Insurance Company. As such subagent the defendant was responsible only to the agent who appointed him and not to the company; that is, the company had nothing to do with him. When Mr. Gray , cashier of the company, came here he suspended the defendant as agent for the company. Mr. Gray then took charge of the premium on Governor Hernadez’s policy and I was sent to collect it. Governor Hernandez told me that he could not pay the entire amount of the premium at that time, but gave me his promissory note for P116 to be credited on account of the premium due on his policy. Mr. Hernandez did not owe the defendant any commission on account of his policy that I know of. The defendant wrote policies for Luisa Caraza and Cecilio Dayot, and secured certain advances from some policy holders. When the defendant was dismissed I received a letter from Mr. Northcott, directing me to collect all of the papers in the hands of the defendant and I made a demand upon him for such papers as he had in his possession, but he has not delivered them to me.

"Ernesto M. Calvo, being duly sworn, testified substantially as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I am 33 years of age, single, and a resident of Iloilo. I was formerly agent of the West Coast Insurance Company for the Provinces of Panay and Negros. I appointed the defendant an agent of the company in February or March last. I was authorized to appoint agents the same as Mr. Northcott. I had a number of agents working for me down here and they looked to me for their commission. The agents appointed by me were also appointed by the company, because I was not allowed to appoint without the consent of the company. I do not owe the defendant anything; I don’t know whether the company does or not. I told the defendant that if a settlement was not made with him he could take what was due him out of the first premium he collected. I had no right to do this, but did it in order to get him to work for my company, and to show him that I really came down here representing Mr. Northcott. I was not authorized to hold out any money on premiums collected, but directed to send all moneys collected to Manila. I have not made a settlement with the company yet for my services. The defendant and I were rivals and could not agree with each other at the time he asked for his commissions; I recommended to the company that the defendant be not appointed as agent, but he was appointed by the company on May 4. I think the defendant had already been appointed by the company when the policy of Felix Golez was written. I think I received this policy in April. On July 7 I received an order from the company to turn over all papers to Mr. Igpuara, and I did so. My contract with the company was the same as the document marked Exhibit A; but in addition thereto I had a letter from the company and verbal instructions from Mr. Northcott. Mr. Northcott told me I was authorized to do anything, hence he is responsible, if anybody is, and not I.

"Adriano Hernandez. being dully sworn, testified substantially as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I am 42 years of age, married, and am serving as provincial governor of Iloilo. I gave this defendant my promissory note for P116 at his request in order to assist him to make a payment. This promissory note was not made in consideration of any policy of mine issued by the West Coast Life Insurance Company. By request of the defendant I made the promissory note payable to Mr. Igpuara to whom the note was delivered by me. At that time my policy had been canceled, but later on I was given another physical examination and my policy was renewed. Later, by agreement with Mr. Igpuara and the defendant, I advanced the difference between the amount of the promissory note already given and the amount of the premium due on my policy in payment of my premium. I received a letter from the Manila office advising me that I could see this defendant about my policy instead of seeing Mr. Calvo. When I signed the promissory note for P116 I had in mind to help the defendant to make a settlement with the company."cralaw virtua1aw library

Giving the accused the benefit of the doubt which arises on a review of the whole record, we think he must be acquitted of the crime with which he is charged. Upon a strict construction of the terms of his contract, it would seem to have been the duty of the accused to turn over to the company, or this duly authorized agent, the amount which he is alleged to have improperly retained, and await a settlement to be made thereafter of any claims he may have had against the company. But, if as a matter of fact, the company was indebted to him for commissions on policies secured by him, it would appear that he was acting under the express authority of one of the company’s general agents in retaining the amount of this indebtedness, pending a settlement of his accounts with the company. The evidence of the defense on this point is not disputed.

With no evidence before us tending to prove that the accused was not justified in relying upon the instructions and authority of the company’s agent in this regard we do not think that he can be held criminally liable for the retention of any amount which, in good faith, he believed the company was indebted to him.

The real question for determination in this case is, therefore, whether the accused, in good faith, believed the company to be indebted to him in the amount which it is charged and admitted he collected and failed to turn over. Upon this point we are of opinion that the evidence is not sufficiently conclusive to sustain a finding beyond a reasonable doubt. It is quite evident that there were differences between the accused and the company’s local and general agents as to whom the commissions on various policies should be paid; and giving the accused the benefit of the doubt, we do not think that the evidence of records is sufficient to maintain a finding that his claim of indebtedness against the company was not made in good faith, in the honest belief that he was entitled to the commissions claimed by him.

The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court should therefore be reversed and the accused acquitted of the offense with which he is charged, with the costs in both instances de officio. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Moreland and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Trent, J., dissents.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1914 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9267 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GERVASIO GUMARANG ET AL.,

    027 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 9291 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CAMILA CUNANAN

    027 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. 8254 March 3, 1914 - MARIANO GONZAGA ET AL. v. FELISA GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 8913 March 3, 1914 - NELLIE LOUISE COOK v. J. MCMICKING

    027 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 9201 March 3, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO SUAN

    027 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 8223 March 4, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO PAINAGA

    027 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. 7657 March 6, 1914 - AMBROSIO TIEMPO v. VIUDA E HIJOS DE PLACIDO REYES

    027 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 8429-27 March 7, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. EVARISTO BATLLE ET AL.

    027 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 8662 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. HERMOGENES BESUÑA

    027 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 8699 March 7, 1914 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. SHERIFF OF OCCIDENTAL NEGROS

    027 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 8983 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO EDPALINA

    027 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 9066 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO HUDIERES

    027 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 7946 March 9, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. SATURNINA RIZAL

    027 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 8227 March 9, 1914 - ANTONIO M. JIMENEZ v. FIDEL REYES

    027 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 8325 March 10, 1914 - C. B. WILLIAMS v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

    027 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. 8927 March 10, 1914 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. MARIA IGNACIA USON ET AT.

    027 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 9147 March 10, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PERFECTO LAMADRID ET AL.

    027 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 8603 March 13, 1914 - SEVERINO CORNISTA v. SEVERA TICSON

    027 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 8984 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LABIAL

    027 Phil 82

  • G.R. Nos. 9471 & 9472 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO VAQUILAR

    027 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 8748 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SANTOS P. PALMA

    027 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 8931 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARQUI

    027 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 8971 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CIRILO BAUA

    027 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. 9006 March 14, 1914 - JOSE ANTONIO GASCON ENRIQUEZ v. A.D. GIBBS

    027 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 9059 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA SARMIENTO

    027 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 9099 March 14, 1914 - J. MCMICKING v. SPRUNGLI & CO. ET AL.

    027 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 9169 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PANTELEON MARIANO ET AL.

    027 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 9348 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ELEUTERO MANTE

    027 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 7352 March 15, 1914 - CATALINO HILLARO v. LA CONGREGACION DE SAN VICENTE DE PAUL

    027 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 8140 March 16, 1914 - FORTUNATO GASPAR v. ANACLETO QUINADARA

    027 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 8851 March 16, 1914 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK ET AL.,

    027 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 8200 March 17, 1914 - LEONARDO LUCIDO v. GELASIO CALUPITAN ET AL.

    027 Phil 148

  • Special proceeding March 17, 1914 - IN RE: EUGENIO DE LARA

    027 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 7333 March 18, 1914 - DEMETRIO ARCENAS v. ESTANISLAO LASERNA

    027 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 7790 March 19, 1914 - EL BANCO ESPANOL-FILIPINO v. MCKAY & ZOELLER

    027 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 8235 March 19, 1914 - ISIDORO SANTOS v. LEANDRA MANARANG

    027 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 8414 March 19,1914

    ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHIBISHOP OF MANILA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    027 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 8998 March 19, 1914 - JOSE FLORENDO v. EUSTAQUIO P. FOZ

    027 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 9307 March 19, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 9098 March 20, 1914 - JOSE M. GONZALEZ v. PERCY M. MOIR

    027 Phil 256

  • Special proceeding March 21, 1914 - IN RE: LUICIANO DE LA ROSA

    027 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 8937 March 21, 1914 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR AND CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING. CO. v. PEDRO N. MOJICA

    027 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 9302 March 21, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON DUNGCA

    027 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 6960 March 23, 1914 - VICENTE GUASH v. JUANA ESPIRITU

    027 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 7909 March 24, 1914 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ISABEL RAMIREZ

    027 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 8385 March 24, 1914 - LUCIO ALGARRA v. SIXTO SANDEJAS

    027 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. 8314 March 25, 1914 - M. A. CLARKE v. MANILA CANDY COMPANY

    027 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 8461 March 25, 1914 - RAMON MEDINA ONG-QUINGCO v. CECILIO IMAZ

    027 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. 9124 March 25, 1914 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    027 Phil 319

  • Special Proceeding March 25, 1914 - IN RE: EMILIANO TRIA TIRONA

    027 Phil 323



  • G.R. No. 7721 March 25, 1914 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. GREGORIO YULO

    034 Phil 978


  • G.R. No. 7420 March 25, 1914 - NAZARIO CABALLO ET AL. v. CIPRIANO DANDOY ET. AL.

    027 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 7762 March 25, 1914 - BEHN v. JOSE MCMICKING

    027 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 7593 March 27, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE M. IGPUARA

    027 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 7647 March 27, 1914 - DOMINGO CALUYA v. LUCIA DOMINGO

    027 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 7670 March 28, 1914 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 8051 March 28, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MADRIGAL ET AL.

    027 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. 9010 March 28, 1914 - J. H. CHAPMAN v. JAMES M. UNDERWOOD

    027 Phil 374

  • G.R. Nos. 9619 & 9620 March 28, 1914 - NGO YAO TIT EL AL. v. SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 7270 March 29, 1914 - GREGORIO JIMENEZ ET AL. v. PASCUALA LOZADA ET AL.

    027 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 7287 & 7288 March 29, 1914 - PEDRO MONTIERO v. VIRGINIA SALGADO Y ACUÑA

    027 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 7896 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MCMICKING v. CRISANTO LICHAUGO ET AL.

    027 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 8313 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MA. Y. DE ALDECOA v. JOSE FORTIS ET AL.

    027 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 8362 March 30, 1914 - JOSE PEREZ PASTOR v. PEDRO NOEL ET AL.

    027 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. 8375 March 30, 1914 - INTERISLAND EXPRESS CO. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    027 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 8478 March 30, 1914 - LUIS ESPERANZA v. ANDREA CATINDING

    027 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 8527 March 30, 1914 - WEST COAST LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. GEO. N. HURD

    027 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 8579 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. RUPERTO T. SANTIAGO

    027 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 8654 March 30, 1914 - EUGENIO RESOLME ET AL. v. ROMAN LAZO

    027 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 8689 March 30, 1914 - LIBRADO MANAS ET AL. v. MARIA RAFAEL

    027 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 8781 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO JAVIER DICHAO

    027 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 8785 March 30, 1914 - UY ALOC ET AL. v. CHO JAN LING ET AL.

    027 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 9178 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE LASTIMOSA

    027 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 9217 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO MARTINEZ

    027 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 9294 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO SANCHEZ

    027 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 9329 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO AGUAS

    027 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 9397 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE VAYSON

    027 Phil 447