Title
People vs. Camara
Case
G.R. No. 9459
Decision Date
Oct 19, 1914
Severino Camara acquitted of estafa; alleged misappropriation of P425.10 deemed a civil debt, not criminal, as transactions were part of a contractual obligation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 188372)

Factual Background

Severino Camara was accused of taking and appropriating the sum of P425.10 from Calixto Berbari for the commission on the purchase of copra, thereby committing the crime of estafa. However, evidence presented revealed that there should be a deduction of P8.50 from this amount, corresponding to the value of rice purchased by Camara on credit. Consequently, the actual sum that could be considered potentially misappropriated was reduced to P416.60, followed by additional deductions based on the acknowledgment of transactions by both parties.

Legal Analysis of Estafa Charge

The court examined the essence of the estafa charge in light of specific provisions of the Penal Code, particularly paragraph 5 of Article 535. This article does not categorize contracts of sale, such as the one involving the rice, as obligations that give rise to criminal liability for non-payment. Thus, the nature of Camara's obligations was classified as a debtor relationship rather than a criminal act, reinforcing that while he was indebted for the rice, this did not constitute estafa, which requires a clear intent to defraud.

Examination of the Account Statements

During the trial, a detailed account statement of Camara's transactions with Berbari Hermanos was provided, highlighting that previous balances owed by both parties were interconnected. The complaint cited a balance of P425.10 based on an extract of an account showing entries of credits and debits. However, upon scrutiny, it was established that prior to the events leading to the complaint, there was no outstanding balance in favor of Berbari Hermanos, rather a debtor relationship was upheld.

Ruling on Criminal Liability

The court ruled that the foundation of the criminal complaint was erroneous, as the alleged embezzlement stemmed from a balance that required prior settlement rather than indicating an act of misappropriation. The ruling emphasized that mere discrepancies in an account do not equate to criminal misappropri

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.