Facts:

The case involves Francisco Sycip as the petitioner against the Honorable Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines as respondents. The events leading to the case began on August 25, 1970, when the Court of First Instance of Manila convicted Sycip of estafa, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of three months of arresto mayor as minimum to one year and eight months of prision correccional as maximum. He was also ordered to indemnify the complainant, Jose K. Lapuz, the sum of P5,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The Court of Appeals later affirmed the trial court's decision but removed the subsidiary imprisonment clause.

The facts, as established by the appellate court, indicate that in April 1961, Jose K. Lapuz received 2,000 shares of stock from Albert Smith, which were covered by a certificate in the name of Dwight Dill, who had left for Honolulu. Lapuz was to sell these shares at the current market value...

Facts:

1. Entrustment of Shares: In April 1961, Jose K. Lapuz received 2,000 shares of Republic Flour Mills, Inc. from Albert Smith, which were owned by Dwight Dill. Lapuz was tasked with selling the shares and earning a commission.
2. Petitioner's Involvement: Francisco Sycip (petitioner) approached Lapuz, claiming he had connections in the Stock Exchange and could sell the shares at a good price. Lapuz entrusted the shares to Sycip, clarifying that the shares were not his but were entrusted to him for sale.
3. Partial Sale and Payment: Sycip sold 758 shares for P12,128.00, and Lapuz paid Albert Smith P9,981.40 for these shares. Sycip informed Lapuz that 1,758 shares had been sold for P29,000.00 but required a Power of Attorney from Dwight Dill to complete the transaction.
4. Return of Shares and Dishonored Draft: Sycip returned 500 shares to Lapuz, claiming the deal for 1,000 shares was closed but payment was pending. He issued a draft for P8,000.00, which was dishonored by the bank due to insufficient funds.
5. Dishonored Check: Sycip later issued a check for P5,000.00, which was also dishonored. Lapuz demanded payment, threatening to file an estafa case if Sycip failed to pay.
6. Conviction: The trial court convicted Sycip of estafa, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but deleted the subsidiary imprisonment clause.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Right to Hearing on Appeal: An appellant is not entitled to a hearing on appeal as a matter of right. The appellate court has discretion to decide whether to hear oral arguments.
2. Due Process in Appellate Proceedings: Due process is satisfied if the appellant had the opportunity to present his case during the trial. Presence during appellate proceedings is not required.
3. Compensation Requires Mutual Debt: Compensation under the Civil Code requires that both parties are creditors and debtors of each other in their own right. This was not the case here, as Lapuz was acting as an agent.
4. Statute of Frauds Must Be Raised Timely: Issues not raised in the trial court or Court of Appeals cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
5. Elements of Estafa: To convict for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, there must be (a) fraud, (b) failure to return the goods on demand, and (c) failure to provide a satisfactory explanation. These elements were present in Sycip's case.