Facts:

On October 4, 1906, a complaint was filed by the provincial fiscal of Sorsogon against Laureano Rodriguez in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, accusing him of the crime of estafa. The complaint detailed that Rodriguez was employed as an agent or clerk by the copartnership Herranz & Garriz from January 1904 to March 1906, with a fixed salary. During his employment, he was responsible for receiving money and goods for the firm’s business operations in Bacon, Sorsogon. It was alleged that Rodriguez unlawfully appropriated and converted to his own use the sum of P3,667.26, which represented the proceeds from goods sold and money received for commercial purposes. The complaint further stated that Rodriguez falsified the books and accounts to conceal his fraudulent activities, thereby defrauding Herranz & Garriz.

The trial revealed that Rodriguez had been in charge of the branch office of Herranz & Garriz in Bacon and had a yearly salary that was reduced over t...

Facts:

1. Employment and Role of the Accused:

   • Laureano Rodriguez was employed as an agent or clerk by the copartnership Herranz & Garriz in Bacon, Sorsogon, from January 1904 to March 1906.
   • His duties included purchasing abaca (hemp), selling goods at fixed prices, and submitting monthly accounts of transactions.

2. Misappropriation of Funds:

   • Rodriguez received money and goods from Herranz & Garriz for business purposes but misappropriated P3,667.26 for his own use.
   • He falsified books and accounts to conceal the fraud, including omitting his wife, Fortunata Confesor, as a debtor in his reports.

3. Discovery of the Fraud:

   • Upon investigation, discrepancies were found in Rodriguez's accounts, revealing a shortage of P4,049.70.
   • Rodriguez admitted to misusing P1,500 to pay family debts in Spain and transferring money and goods to his wife’s separate store.

4. Legal Proceedings:

   • Rodriguez was charged with estafa under the Penal Code.
   • The trial court sentenced him to two years, eleven months, and ten days of presidio correccional, with accessory penalties, and ordered him to indemnify Herranz & Garriz P1,500.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Elements of Estafa:

   • The crime of estafa requires misappropriation or conversion of funds or property entrusted to the accused, with intent to defraud.
   • Rodriguez’s actions, including falsifying accounts and misusing funds for personal purposes, clearly established his criminal liability.

2. Criminal Intent:

   • While the full amount of P4,049.70 could not be conclusively proven as misappropriated, Rodriguez admitted to using P1,500 for personal debts, demonstrating intent to defraud.

3. Effect of Promise to Pay:

   • Rodriguez’s promise to repay the misappropriated amount did not absolve him of criminal liability. Civil agreements or restitution do not negate the existence of a public crime.

4. Penalty Modification:

   • The Court reduced the penalty to two years of presidio correccional, considering the lack of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The abuse of confidence is inherent in estafa and does not constitute an aggravating circumstance.