UNITED
JOSE
M.
IGPUARA, defendant-appellant.
W. A. Kincaid, Thos. L. Hartigan and Jose Robles Lahesa for appellant.
Solicitor-General Harvey for appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. "ESTAFA"; MISAPPROPRIATION OF DEPOSIT BY AGENT. The
balance of a commission account remaining in possession of the agent at the
principal's disposal acquires at once the character of a deposit which the
former must return or restore to the latter at any time it is demanded, nor can
he lawfully dispose of it without incurring criminal responsibility for
appropriating or diverting to his own use author's property.
2. ID.; ID. It could only become his as a loan, if so expressly agreed
by its owner, who would then be obligated not to demand it until the expiration
of the legal or stipulated period for a loan.
3. ID.; ID. He undoubtedly commits the crime of estafa who, having
in his possession a certain amount of another's money on deposit at its
owner's disposal, appropriates or diverts it to his own use, with manifest
damage to its owner, for he has not restored it and has so acted willfully and
wrongfully in abuse of the confidence reposed in him.
DECISION
ARELLANO, C. J :
p
The defendant herein is charged with the crime of estafa, for having
swindled Juana Montilla and Eugenio Veraguth out of P2,498 Philippine
currency, which he had taken on deposit from the former to be at the latter's
disposal. The document setting forth the obligation reads:
"We hold at the disposal of Eugenio Veraguth the sum of two thousand
four hundred and ninety-eight pesos P2,498), the balance from Juana
Montilla's sugar. Iloilo, June 26, 1911. Jose Igpuara, for Ramirez & Co."
The Court of First Instance of Iloilo sentenced the defendant to two
years of presidio correccional, to pay Juana Montilla P2,498 Philippine
currency, and in case of insolvency to subsidiary imprisonment at P2.50 per
day, not to exceed one-third of the principal penalty, and the costs.
The defendant appealed, alleging as errors: (1) Holding that the
document executed by him was a certificate of deposit; (2) holding the
existence of a deposit, without precedent transfer or delivery of the P2,498;
and (3) classifying the facts in the case as the crime of estafa.
"A deposit is constituted from the time a person receives a thing
belonging to another with the obligation of keeping and returning it." (Art.
1758, Civil Code.)
acknowledges, or any contract entered into with the depositor to convert the
deposit into a loan, commission, or other contract.
That demand was not made for restitution of the sum deposited, which
could have been claimed on the same or the next day after the certificate was
signed, does not operate against the depositor, or signify anything except the
intention not to press it. Failure to claim at once or delay for some time in
demanding restitution of the thing deposited, which was immediately due,
does not imply such permission to use the thing deposited as would convert
the deposit into a loan.
Article 408 of the Code of Commerce of 1829, previous to the one now
in force, provided:
"The depositary of an amount of money cannot use the amount,
and if he makes use of it, he shall be responsible for all damages that
may accrue and shall respond to the depositor for the legal interest on
the amount."
In this connection it was held that failure to return the thing deposited
was not sufficient, but that it was necessary to prove that the depositary had
appropriated it to himself or diverted the deposit to his own or another's
benefit. He was accused of refusing to restore, and it was held that the code
does not penalize refusal to restore but denial of having received. So much for
the crime of omission; now with reference to the crime of commission, it was
not held in that decision that appropriation or diversion of the thing deposited
would not constitute the crime of estafa.
In the second of said decisions, the accused "kept none of the proceeds
of the sales. Those, such as they were, he turned over the owner;" and there
being no proof of the appropriation, the agent could not be found guilty of the
crime ofestafa.
Being in accord with law and the merits of the case, the judgment
appealed from is affirmed, with costs.
Torres, Johnson and Trent, JJ., concur.
|||
(United States v. Igpuara, G.R. No. 7593, [March 27, 1914], 27 PHIL 619-624)