Case Summary (G.R. No. L-28060)
Relevant Facts
The undisputed facts indicate that Jumawan was an agent on a commission basis for the Montel Discount Center and other business firms, where he collected payments from customers, which he generally conveyed back to the firms. However, between July and August 1965, he failed to turn over a specific amount of P55.00 that he had collected for the Montel Discount Center. Jumawan's defense was that he retained this amount because he had not been paid commissions of P65.00 on previous collections and an expense allowance of P1.50 per day.
Trial Court's Findings
The trial court convicted Jumawan of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, relying primarily on the rejection of his defense, which cited Articles 1912 to 1914 of the Civil Code. The trial court did not evaluate Jumawan's claim of lack of criminal intent or the absence of damage to his principal, which is a critical component of the crime of estafa.
Appellant’s Claims
Jumawan contended that, due to the non-payment of his earned commissions and allowances, he was justified in retaining the amount owed to him. His defense was supported by the fact that he had collected and turned over previous amounts but had yet to receive any compensation from his employer, raising genuine concerns about his financial standing as an agent.
Court's Analysis
The appellate court found merit in Jumawan's claims. It highlighted that the undisputed evidence showed he retained less than what was actually due to him, thus negating any notion of criminal intent. The court emphasized that Jumawan's actions were not motivated by malice or intent to defraud, given that he was being deprived of compensation owed to him.
Absence of Criminal Intent and Damage
The appellate court established that the essential elements of estafa, specifically criminal intent and damage or prejudice to the principal, were not present in Jumawan's case. The amounts retained constituted only part of what was owed to him, and the justification provided by his principal for withholding commissio
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-28060)
Case Overview
- This case involves a direct appeal on questions of law from the judgment of the City Court of San Carlos City.
- The appellant, Tomas Jumawan, was found guilty of estafa and sentenced to four months and one day in prison.
- The case was decided on February 27, 1970, by Justice Teehankee.
Facts of the Case
- Tomas Jumawan was an agent on a commission basis for the Montel Discount Center, Iloilo Enterprises, and Piamonte Bros., primarily tasked with selling radios.
- He collected various amounts from customers, which were handed over to the respective firms, except for the amount of Fifty-Five Pesos (P55.00) collected in July and August 1965.
- Jumawan retained the P55.00, citing non-payment of his commissions and a daily expense allowance as reasons for his retention.
- A dispute arose between Jumawan and Mr. Manuel Piamonte, his principal, over unpaid commissions and allowances, leading to a near altercation.
Trial Court's Findings
- The trial court convicted Jumawan of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
- It based its decision on the rejection of Jumawan's defense, which invoked Articles 1912 to 1914 of the Civil Code that allow an agent to retain payment until the principal reimburses them for expenses a