Title
People vs. Clarin
Case
G.R. No. L-5840
Decision Date
Sep 17, 1910
Eusebio Clarin acquitted of estafa; partnership agreement with Pedro Larin deemed civil, not criminal. Proper remedy: civil action for partnership settlement.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5840)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background and Agreement
    • Pedro Larin delivered P172 to Pedro Tarug with the intention that Tarug, together with Eusebio Clarin and Carlos de Guzman, would engage in the buying and selling of mangoes.
    • Larin and the three men entered into an agreement to equally divide the profits in the business.
  • Conduct of Transaction
    • Tarug, Clarin, and Guzman traded mangoes and earned a total of P203 as profits.
    • Despite the agreement, they did not deliver Larin his share of the profits nor did they provide an accounting of the capital.
  • Legal Action
    • Pedro Larin filed a charge of estafa (swindling) against the parties involved.
    • The provincial fiscal only filed information against Eusebio Clarin, accusing him of appropriating both the P172 capital and Larin’s share of profits amounting to P15.50.
    • Pedro Tarug and Carlos de Guzman appeared as witnesses and implied they were also involved.
  • Trial Court Decision
    • The Court of First Instance of Pampanga convicted Eusebio Clarin and sentenced him to six months' arresto mayor with accessory penalties.
    • Clarin was ordered to return P172 to Larin plus P30.50 as Larin’s share of the profits, with subsidiary imprisonment as penalty for insolvency.
    • Clarin was also ordered to pay costs.
  • Appeal
    • Clarin appealed the decision, raising the issue of the nature of the transaction and his liability.

Issues:

  • Whether the money delivered by Larin to Tarug, Clarin, and Guzman constituted a partnership investment or a deposit that would render the parties liable for estafa in case of non-return.
  • Whether the refusal or failure to return the capital and share of profits constitutes estafa under Philippine criminal law.
  • Whether Eusebio Clarin was criminally liable for estafa for the appropriation of the capital and profits.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.