Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1940 > November 1940 Decisions > G.R. No. 47083 November 18, 1940 - ALEJANDRO JAVIER v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

070 Phil 550:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 47083. November 18, 1940.]

ALEJANDRO JAVIER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent-Appellee.

Ezpeleta & Salvosa for Petitioner-Appellant.

Acting Solicitor-General Ibañez and Assistant Attorney Maramba for

respondent-appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; "ESTAFA; ADMISSION. — The point is now raised by the petitioner-appellant that he should not have been convicted merely on the strength of his admissions contained in Exhibits A and B which, it is alleged, were obtained through duress and compulsion. As to whether said ad missions were made voluntarily or obtained by means of force or threat, we need only say that the Court of Appeals as well as the Court of First Instance of Manila found no such duress or compulsion.

2. ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — Besides, A. J. was not convicted on the strength of his admission or confession alone. The facts and circumstances of the case were laid before the courts a quo, and these, considered together with the admissions of the accused, wove out a clear case of estafa and pointed to the guilt of A. J. beyond reasonable doubt.

3. ID.; ID.; EFFECT OF PAYMENT AFTER COMMISSION OF CRIME. — It is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that payment made subsequent to the commission of the crime of estafa does not alter the nature of the crime committed nor does it relieve the defendant from the penalty prescribed by law. In Anglo-American law the same rule obtains.


D E C I S I O N


LAUREL, J.:


This petition for a writ of certiorari is predicated on two grounds: (1) That the Court of Appeals erred in convicting Alejandro Javier of estafa on the strength merely of his admissions contained in Exhibits A and B which were repudiated by him as having been obtained through duress and compulsion, and therefore inadmissible; and (2) That the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the penalty imposed by the trial court which is not in accordance with law.

Alejandro Javier, petitioner-appellant in this case, was formerly a sales agent of German and Company, Ltd. while in the employ of said firm it was his duty to prepare "purchase orders" of such merchandise as were sold by him subject to the approval of the manager. The collection of the purchase price of the sales made was also entrusted to him. Some time in January, 1935, it was discovered by the management of the company that there was a big outstanding and uncollected account and that some of the persons whose names appeared in the invoices did not live at the addresses specified, or if they were existing persons they pretended ignorance of any sales made to them. On February 7, 1935, the manager, Mr. Bergman, complied a list (Exhibit A) of all the sales made by Alejandro Javier and gave it to Attorney Pedro Franco, who showed it to Javier. Javier declared that some of the customers appearing therein were solvent customers and would pay, but that most of them were fictitious. Upon request of Atty. Franco, Javier indicated the customers who were fictitious and those who were not. Thereafter, in a written confession (Exhibit B), he admitted having misappropriated the amount of P12,052.57, by means of fictitious orders he had made. To check up Alejandro’s statement, Atty. Franco wrote letters to several of the customers requesting payment but most of them were returned. Nevertheless, Alejandro Javier was given a chance to repay the amount he had misappropriated. He agreed to pay on account to German and Company, Ltd., the sum of fifty pesos (P50) monthly. But no more than four incomplete payments were made by him.

Charged with estafa in the amount of P12,052.57, it was proved at the trial that defendant had paid over to the company the sum of P62 on account of the amount embezzled. The Court of First Instance of Manila convicted him of the offense charged under paragraph 1 of article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of from one year, eight months, and twenty one days to five years, five months, and eleven days of prision correccional, to indemnify German and Company, Ltd., in the amount of P11,990.57, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, to suffer the accessory penalties provided by law and to pay the costs. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals this decision was affirmed in its totality.

The point is now raised by the petitioner-appellant that he should not have been convicted merely on the strength of his admission contained in Exhibits A and B which, it is alleged, were obtained through duress and compulsion. As to whether said admissions were made voluntarily or obtained by means of force or threat, we need only say that the Court of Appeals as well as the Court of First Instance of Manila found no such duress or compulsion.

Besides, Alejandro Javier was not convicted on the strength of his admission or confession alone. The facts and circumstances of the case were laid before the courts a quo, and these, considered together with the admissions of the accused, wove out a clear case of estafa and pointed to the guilt of Alejandro Javier beyond reasonable doubt.

It is also vehemently contended that since the appellant was able to make partial payments amounting to P62 of the P12,052.57, the remaining amount of P11,990.57 should serve as the basis of determining the penalty to be suffered by the appellant. Thus, it is argued, because the amount embezzled by appellant does not exceed the amount of P12,000, his case falls under the second paragraph of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and he should, therefore, be sentenced only to a minimum of one year, eight months and twenty-one days and a maximum of two years, eleven months and ten days. We find to merit in this contention. It is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that payment made subsequent to the commission of the crime of estafa does not alter the nature of the crime committed nor does it relieve the defendant from the penalty prescribed by law. (U. S. v. Ongtengco, 4 Phil., 144; U. S. v. Rodriguez, 9 Phil., 153; U. S. v. Sevilla, 43 Phil., 186; People v. Velazco, 42 Phil., 75; People v. Ylaya, G. R. No. 35597; People v. Quingpua, G. R. No. 37770; People v. Jardin, G. R. No. 41302; People v. Quintos, G. R. No. 42125.) In Anglo-American law the same rule obtains. (20 C. J., sec. 50, p 455.)

The alleged error with reference to the denial by the Court of Appeals of the petition for new trial need not be considered in this petition for certiorari.

The judgment sought to be reviewed is affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, and Horrilleno, 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






November-1940 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 47318 November 6, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. PEDRO LAGUTAN

    070 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 47124 November 7, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. VITO CABIGUIN

    070 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 46975 November 8, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JOSE BANDOJO

    070 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. 47325 November 8, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. VICENTE LLANES Y RAMON TORLAO

    070 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 47440 November 8, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANTONIO VELISARIO Y OTROS

    070 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 47425 November 12, 1940 - PONCIANO JACINTO v. STANDARD VACUUM OIL COMPANY

    070 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 46948 November 13, 1940 - PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. LUISA AVECILLA VIUDA DE CELIS

    070 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. 46978 November 14, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MARCOS ESTIPONA

    070 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. 47364 November 14, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. PASTOR LACSAMANA Y OTROS

    070 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 47423 November 14, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTINA ORPIANO

    070 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 46998 November 16, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JUAN LAZADA

    070 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. 47176 November 16, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. TRINIDAD BRINGAS

    070 Phil 528

  • G.R. No. 47403 November 16, 1940 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO. v. BAGONG PAGKAKAISA

    070 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 47458 November 16, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO OLOD

    070 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. 47486 November 16, 1940 - MANILA TRADING SUPPLY CO. v. PHIL. LABOR UNION

    070 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. 47083 November 18, 1940 - ALEJANDRO JAVIER v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    070 Phil 550

  • G.R. No. 47289 November 18, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONG TA

    070 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. 47324 November 18, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE TOPACIO NUENO

    070 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 46973 November 19, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVERIO MORADOS, ET AL.

    070 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. 47064 November 19, 1940 - BOHOL LAND TRANS. CO. v. BISAYA LAND TRANSPORTATION CO.

    070 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 47190 November 19, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. DIONISIO FABRO

    070 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 47288 November 19, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. LAMPACO AMEROL Y OTROS

    070 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. 46972 November 20, 1940 - CARLOS YOUNG v. EL REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE MANILA

    070 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 47104 November 20, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO ASAS, ET AL.

    070 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. 46786 November 25, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. OCTAVIO MARASIGAN

    070 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 46890 November 25, 1940 - GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER EXPORT CO. v. ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING CO.

    070 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 46906 November 25, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. PETRONIO ALAGAO

    070 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 47178 November 25, 1940 - INTERNATIONAL HARDWOOD & VENEER CO. v. PANGIL FEDERATION OF LABOR

    070 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. 47180 November 25, 1940 - ISIDRO ALEJANDRO v. EL JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE BULACAN

    070 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. 47205 November 26, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MARIANO IROG

    070 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 47279 November 26, 1940 - MANILA ELECTRIC CO. v. NAT’L. LABOR UNION

    070 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 47303 November 25, 1940 - REX TAXICAB CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    070 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 47316 November 25, 1940 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE TARLAC v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    070 Phil 632

  • G.R. No. 47322 November 25, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. VIC TORINO CRISOSTOMO

    070 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 47363 November 25, 1940 - ROMUALDA FRANCO v. GERVASIO DIAZ

    070 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. 47391 November 25, 1940 - JAO GUAN SOY Y JAO NE SUY v. JOSE DELGADO

    070 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. 47400 November 25, 1940 - RICARDO YAPJOCO v. COMMONWEALTH DE FILIPINAS

    070 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 47565 November 25, 1940 - PHIL. MANUFACTURING CO. v. JESUS NABOR

    070 Phil 650

  • Asto. Adm. No. 756 November 26, 1940 - BIENVENIDO ECIJA v. RAMON T. ROMERO

    070 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. 47359 November 27, 1940 - DAVID BUSTOS v. JOSE MA. PAREDES

    070 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. 46953 November 28, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FERMIN GONZALEZ

    070 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. 47161 November 28, 1940 - TAN KIAT HUN Y YAP KONG HA v. JOSE DELGADO

    070 Phil 669

  • G.R. No. 47339 November 28, 1940 - BARDWILL BROS. v. PHIL. LABOR UNION Y EL TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    070 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 47350 November 28, 1940 - MARIANO M. LAZATIN v. NARCISO PEÑA

    070 Phil 680

  • G.R. No. 47360 November 28, 1940 - BOHOL LAND TRANSPORTATION CO. v. FERMINA VIUDA DE MADANGUIT Y OTROS

    070 Phil 685

  • Adm. Case No. 945 November 29, 1940 - CORNELIA IBAÑEZ v. TOMAS MORALES

    070 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. 47277 November 29, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. TELESFORO ESTRAÑERO

    070 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. 47410 November 29, 1940 - ORIENTAL GLASS PALACE v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    070 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. 47903 November 29, 1940 - JUAN SUMULONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    070 Phil 703