G.R. No. 9459 - People vs. Camara

Severino Camara, acting as an agent of Berbari Hermanos, was charged with misappropriation when he received P425.10 from Calixto Berbari (acting as the firm's representative) for the purchase of copra on commission in December 1912.
It was later shown that from this sum, an amount of P8.50 (the price of a sack of rice sold on credit) should be deducted, thereby reducing the base amount in question.
The resultant figure was further adjusted by deducting P36.06, corresponding to the value of the copra furnished by the defendant as admitted by Berbari Hermanos.
Consequently, the amount ostensibly embezzled was recalculated to be P380.54, not the P425.10 alleged in the complaint.

An account statement maintained by the manager of Berbari Hermanos detailed entries with Camara.

The account began with a balance in favor of Berbari Hermanos on September 30, 1911, amounting to P413.35.
By May 1912, the account resumed activity, and on October 31, 1912, it showed debits of P3,467.69 and credits of P1,621.82.

In November 1912, Camara was sued for P1,700 in the Court of First Instance and was subsequently absolved.

On the same period, Camara executed a contract of sale with a repurchase clause for two parcels of coconut land (6 hectares planted with 700 coconut trees) for P1,722.50.
This contract served as security against the debt of P1,700 due under the settlement dated November 12, 1912, thereby converting the issue from an account deficit to a contractual obligation tied to the repurchase agreement.

The criminal complaint filed in February 1913 by the manager of Berbari Hermanos was for estafa, alleging that Camara had embezzled money held on commission.
Evidence presented included the extraction from the account statement, which showed a balance of P425.10 supposedly owed to Berbari Hermanos, a figure derived from the summary of credits and debits in the settled account.
However, the actual nature of the transactions, including the deduction for credit rice purchases and the repurchase contract for land, demonstrated that the disputed amount was not misappropriated funds but part of a regular commercial account.

The trial record included the account statement titled “Extract from the account current of Mr. Severino Camara with Messrs. Berbari Hermanos, Atimonan,” which recorded both credits and debits leading to the disputed balance.
Testimonies during cross-examination clarified that Camara’s transactions were governed by contractual and commercial relations rather than criminal misappropriation.
The case emphasized that when a settlement of account is needed to determine the balance due, a criminal complaint for estafa is misplaced.

Whether Severino Camara’s act of receiving and handling money on commission, which later showed a deficiency in the account, constituted the criminal offense of estafa.
Whether the deduction corresponding to a sale on credit (price of rice) and the subsequent contractual repurchase agreement for coconut land invalidated the basis for a criminal action for misappropriation.
Whether shortage in an account, arising from regular commercial transactions and subject to later settlement, can serve as sufficient evidence for the crime of estafa.