Case Digest (G.R. No. L-41054)
Facts:
Jose L. Gamboa and Units Optical Supply Company v. Court of Appeals and Benjamin Lu Hayco, G.R. No. L-41054, November 28, 1975, First Division, Martin, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Jose L. Gamboa and Units Optical Supply Company employed private respondent Benjamin Lu Hayco in their Sta. Cruz, Manila optical supply business. On January 5, 1973 the company filed 124 complaints for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1‑b of the Revised Penal Code with the City Fiscal of Manila; after preliminary investigation the City Fiscal filed 75 informations for estafa in the City Court of Manila. The informations commonly alleged that Lu Hayco, while collecting payments from customers under an obligation to remit them to the company, misappropriated those sums by depositing them in his personal bank accounts and withdrawing them for his own use.
Separately, the owner Lu Chiong Sun sued civilly for accounting (Civil Case No. 89373, CFI Manila), alleging that while he was hospitalized (Sept. 27–Oct. 30, 1972) Lu Hayco usurped company functions and procured a general power of attorney by deceit, closed the owner’s bank accounts and opened accounts in his own name, then diverted customer collections into those accounts.
While the criminal prosecutions were pending—before various branches of the City Court of Manila at differing stages—the accused filed on May 15, 1974 a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance, Branch XV, Manila, arguing that the 75 informations in reality charged but one crime arising from a single criminal resolution (a theory of continuous crime) and that prosecution of separate informations was oppressive and beyond jurisdiction. On October 31, 1974 the CFI dismissed the petition, finding the daily conversions to be separate acts. Lu Hayco appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on July 17, 1975 reversed and granted prohibition, directing the City Fiscal to dismiss the 75 cases and consolidate the charges into a single information; the CA concluded the acts formed one continuous estafa. The Supreme Court...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the acts charged in the seventy‑five (75) informations constitute a single crime of estafa (a "delito continuado" or continuous crime), thereby requiring consolidation into one information?
- Is the alleged deceit in procuring a general power of attorney material to the estafa-by-conversion charges under Article 315, paragraph 1‑b...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)