Case Digest (G.R. No. 12632)
Facts:
The United States, G.R. No. 12632, September 13, 1917, the Supreme Court (Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Carson, Street, and Malcolm, JJ., concurring), Araullo, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee was the United States; the defendant-appellant was Isidro Cara; the injured private party was Juana Juan.On May 7, 1912, in Santo Domingo, Nueva Ecija, the defendant executed a deed (Exhibit A) purporting to sell to Juana Juan a tract of rice land of about ten hectares for P327 and 60 cavanes of rice, with a right to repurchase within nine months and seven days. The deed, ratified before Notary Public Feliciano Roque, described boundaries and named adjacent owners (Severo Manuel, Bonifacio Cara, Juan Corpus) and recited that the purchase price had been paid.
After the sale Juana Juan attempted to enter into possession but was unable to locate the land. The defendant at times denied the existence of such land. The provincial sheriff, ordered by the court to make an ocular inspection, was accompanied by Severo Manuel, Juana Juan, her brother, and Bonifacio Cara (the defendant’s son); the defendant refused to attend despite a court order. The inspection revealed the tract identified by Bonifacio was actually in a different sitio, belonged to Pedro Carmen, was cultivated by Andres Santiago, and was not bounded by land of the defendant or his son. Witnesses familiar with Malayantoc and neighboring properties denied knowledge of any land of the defendant at the described location.
At trial the defendant produced a land tax receipt (Exhibit 1) dated May 1911 referring to 1908 and in the name of his son, and he claimed the parcel had been given by his son to him in exchange for another tract; he also asserted that the P327 represented a debt of P70 grown by interest and that the deed was in effect a pledge to secure that debt. The deed itself made no mention of any debt, pledge, or loan; the defendant admitted signing the deed and admitted it recorded a sale with right of repurchase.
The Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija found the defendant guilty, on October 19, 1916, of estafa under paragraph 1 of Article 535 and punished under paragraph 2 of Article 534 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to four months and one day of arresto mayor with accessory penalties ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the subsidiary imprisonment ordered in default of payment violate the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt?
- Was the conviction for estafa proper where the defendant contended the transaction was a pledge or settlement of an antecedent debt rather than a fraudulent sale?
- Should the defendant have been acquitted giv...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)