Case Digest (G.R. No. 208284)
Facts:
The case revolves around Tomas Jumawan, the defendant-appellant, who was charged with estafa by the People of the Philippines in the City Court of San Carlos City. The charge stemmed from events that occurred in July and August 1965, when Jumawan, acting as an agent on a commission basis for the Montel Discount Center and affiliated businesses, collected various amounts from customers. It was established that Jumawan turned over collections made to other firms but retained P55.00 collected for the Montel Discount Center. Despite repeated demands for the return of this amount, Jumawan refused, claiming he withheld the funds due to non-payment of commissions owed to him, amounting to P65.00 from previous collections and a daily expense allowance of P1.50 that he claimed was due. The trial court's judgment delivered on June 5, 1967, found Jumawan guilty of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to four months and one day of impriso
Case Digest (G.R. No. 208284)
Facts:
- Parties and Proceedings
- Plaintiff-Appellee: The People of the Philippines.
- Defendant-Appellant: Tomas Jumawan.
- Nature of Proceedings: A direct appeal on questions of law from the judgment of the City Court of San Carlos City, which had found Jumawan guilty of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code and imposed a four-month and one-day prison sentence.
- Transaction and Agency Relationship
- The accused was employed as a commission-based agent for several business entities, namely:
- Montel Discount Center
- Iloilo Enterprises
- Piamonte Bros.
- His duties involved selling radios and collecting payments from customers on behalf of these firms.
- Collections made by the accused were generally turned over to the principals, except for a specific instance involving collections made in July and August 1965 related to the Montel Discount Center.
- Dispute over Retained Amount
- The accused retained an amount of P55.00 from his July and August collections instead of delivering it to the Montel Discount Center.
- He maintained that this retention was attributable to the non-payment of:
- His accrued commission amounting to P65.00 from previous collections which he had already fully turned over.
- His expense allowance of P1.50 per day for the days he collected accounts from the firm's debtors.
- The dispute escalated to the point where a near fight occurred between the accused and Manuel Piamonte, who was identified as a part owner and manager of the Montel Discount Center, at an eatery in Balintawak, Escalante, Negros Occidental.
- Defense and Legal Basis
- The accused invoked his right of retention, as provided for by Articles 1912 to 1914 of the Civil Code.
- These provisions allow an agent to retain in pledge the items which are the object of the agency until he is reimbursed for advances, commissions, or expenses incurred.
- The trial court, however, rejected this defense and based its conviction solely on this rejection, without addressing the issues of criminal intent and actual damage or prejudice to the principal.
- Trial Court’s Findings
- The trial court convicted the accused of estafa on the ground that he unlawfully retained P55.00 even after demand.
- It held that the retention constituted a criminal act, despite the absence of explicit findings about:
- Criminal intent on the part of the accused.
- Any demonstrable damage or prejudice suffered by his principal.
- Notably, the testimony regarding the amounts accrued as commission was unchallenged, and the prosecution’s main witness did not address this financial discrepancy during cross-examination.
Issues:
- Whether the retention of P55.00 by Tomas Jumawan, despite being collected as an agent, constitutes estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
- Whether there existed sufficient criminal intent (malice or fraudulent disposition) on the part of the accused to support a conviction for estafa.
- Whether there was actual damage or prejudice to the principal as required for the crime of estafa, given that the retained amount was merely part of what was justly due to the accused.
- Whether the right of retention, as provided in Articles 1912 to 1914 of the Civil Code, should have been recognized as a valid defense for retaining funds collected on behalf of the business entities.
- The effect, if any, of the alleged technical distinction regarding the corporate identities of Montel Discount Center, Iloilo Enterprises, and Piamonte Bros. on the agency relationship and the corresponding liability under estafa.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)