G.R. No. L-31568 - People vs. Dorico

The accused, Ruperto T. Santiago, was an agent of the West Coast Life Insurance Company.
He was charged and subsequently convicted of the crime of estafa.
His conviction included a sentence of five months of arresto mayor and the imposition of costs for the proceedings.

The charge stemmed from an incident in April 1912 in the municipality of Iloilo, Province of Iloilo.
As an insurance agent, Santiago was entrusted with collecting premiums on policies issued by the company.
Specifically, he collected from Felix Golez the sum of P116.62 through the delivery of a provisional policy (No. 889A).
The information alleged that instead of remitting the collected premium to the company’s treasury, Santiago appropriated the funds for his personal use.

Questions arose over whether the offense should be tried in Iloilo or in Manila, because the defendant’s contract with the company stipulated that premiums be remitted to its Manila office.
The opinion referenced the United States vs. Cardell case, which held that if an offense is committed partly in one province and partly in another, it may be tried in either jurisdiction.

The commission of the offense involved acts in both Iloilo (collection and appropriation) and Manila (failure to remit funds), making the crime consummated through essential material acts in both locations.
The court ruled that under General Orders No. 58, particularly Section 6 regarding the sufficiency of an information within the jurisdiction of the court, the Court of First Instance in Iloilo had concurrent jurisdiction with that of Manila.

Prosecution submitted documents marked as Exhibits A, B, and C.
Exhibit A contained the formal appointment and contract of Santiago as an agent; Exhibits B and C were reports of his transactions during his employment.

Santiago testified that he had collected premiums on several policies, including that for Luis Golez, and noted the commissions he was entitled to.
He explained that the failure to remit the money was due to a pre-existing dispute regarding commissions with the company, where he had outstanding claims amounting to sums such as P208.
Santiago argued that he had received instructions from one of the company’s general agents, which, in his good-faith belief, authorized him to retain the premium until his account with the company was settled.

Jose Maria Igpuara testified regarding the collection of premiums and the practice of the agents whereby commissions were retained and the balance forwarded to Manila.
Ernesto M. Calvo, a former agent, explained that he had advised Santiago to retain the collected premium to settle dues pending a full settlement of his accounts.
Adriano Hernandez, a policyholder and provincial governor, testified on his involvement in issuing a promissory note at Santiago’s request, showing act of assistance rather than fraud.

Whether the incident, involving acts occurring in both Iloilo and Manila, falls within the concurrent jurisdiction of either province’s Court of First Instance.
Whether the practice outlined in the defendant’s contract—mandating the remittance of premiums to the Manila office—affects the determination of the proper venue for trial.

Whether the retention of the premium amount, rather than its remittance, constitutes the criminal act of estafa in view of the alleged abuse of confidence and deceit.
Whether the defendant’s actions were executed with malice and criminal intent despite the contractual instructions.

Whether Santiago acted under the authority and instructions of the company’s general agent when he retained the collected premium.
Whether the defendant’s belief that the company was indebted to him for commissions substantiated his retention of the amount, thereby negating criminal liability.