G.R. No. 141344 - Tapdasan, Jr. vs. People

The accused, Crispin Peralta, served as a municipal police sergeant in Sorsogon, Philippine Islands.
In his official capacity, he was tasked with arresting individuals delinquent in the payment of their personal cedulas and collecting the respective fees.
As a public officer, he had the duty to deposit collected sums into the municipal treasury and to issue appropriate receipts or cedulas.

On May 7, 1910, Claro Rentoria, arrested in the barrio of Guinlajon for not having a cedula, was taken to the house of the barrio lieutenant.
Rentoria provided the accused with an initial payment of P2 to secure the purchase of his cedula for the year 1909.
Rentoria later delivered an additional P2 on May 22, 1910, completing the sum of P4 required for the said transaction.
Instead of processing this payment properly by using it for the payment of Rentoria’s cedula tax, the accused diverted the money for his personal use.

The accused, having already collected P50 from other delinquents in the proper course of his official duties, failed to combine Rentoria’s payment with funds for the intended purpose.
Despite repeated demands from Rentoria for either the return of the money or the issuance of a cedula, the accused neither returned the funds nor fulfilled his duty.
It was only after several complaints and upon discovery in October or November 1910 that:

Authorities, including the captain of the Constabulary and the provincial governor, intervened.
The accused eventually deposited the sum of P4 with a clerk of the municipal treasury, an act insufficient to redress the initial misappropriation.

The case was tried, and following the presentation of evidence, Judge Jose C. Abreu found the defendant guilty of estafa.
The sentencing included:

The defendant subsequently appealed the decision, contesting the characterization of his actions under the crime of estafa.

Whether the facts as proven constituted the crime of estafa as defined under paragraph 5, Article 535 of the Penal Code.

Does the diversion of funds entrusted for public duties into personal use meet the elements required for estafa?
Is the act of failing to return or properly channel the money, despite multiple demands, sufficient to constitute criminal misappropriation?

Whether the evidence properly established the accused’s abuse of his official capacity.

Did the proof provided link the accused directly to the unauthorized collection and diversion of public funds?
Was the wrongful act carried out with the requisite intent, thus meeting the legal standard for estafa?

Whether subsequent remedial actions by the accused affect his liability for the crime committed.

Does the later deposit of the misappropriated funds mitigate the criminal responsibility or the gravity of the offense?
Can the argument that corrective actions exonerate the initial misdeed hold legal merit?