ManilaEN
BANC
THE
UNITED STATES,
Complainant-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 85
October
23, 1901
-versus-
TAN JENJUA,
Defendant-Appellant.
D
E C I S I
O N
MAPA,
J :
The
defendant is charged
with the crime of Estafa alleged to consist in the concealment of a
private
document evidencing a deposit of 2,600 pesos delivered by Fulgencia
Tuason
to the Chinaman Jose Palanca Yu-Tivo.
It appears from the
testimony of witnesses Balbino Tuason and Macario Deirit that Fulgencia
Tuason delivered to Jose Palanca Yu-Tivo through them the sum of 2,600
pesos for the purpose of preventing the money of being seized by the
Spanish
Government. It also appears from authentic documents in the record that
Fulgencia Tuason in September, 1898, went to the
Provost-Marshal-General
of this city with a complaint concerning the deposit of 2,600 pesos
which
she had deposited with the Chinaman Jose Palanca Yu-Tivo. In the
petition
which she presented to the Provost-General she asserted that she had in
her possession a receipt for this deposit. This receipt, according to
the
statement of complaining witness, was subsequently delivered by her to
the defendant, he having offered to collect the amount of the deposit
from
the Chinaman Yu-Syna, the son and attorney in fact of Jose Palanca, the
latter being absent at that time in China. This according to the
complaining
witness occurred in the following manner:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Yu-Syna refused to
pay the total amount of the money deposited and having on two occasions
delivered to her on account the sum of only 250 pesos, the defendant,
Tan
Jenjua, a relative of Yu-Syna, came to her house one day and told her
to
come to see him and he would arrange matters. She went to see him on
the
day following and the defendant then promised to collect part of the
money
in a short time. Two days afterwards she returned and Tan Jenjua paid
her
the sum of 300 pesos. At the same time upon the pretext that he would
undertake
to settle up the affair of Jose Palanca and Yu-Syna, he asked the
complaining
witness to give him the receipt for the deposit, promising to deliver
the
balance of the money deposited within a period of two or three months.
Trusting in Tan Jenjua's good faith and fearing that impending
hostilities
might break out at any time, the complaining witness consented and the
receipt was accordingly delivered in the presence of the Chinaman
Lim-Kayco
and two Filipinos, Daniel and Antonio. Some months afterwards the
complaining
witness made demand for the 2,050 pesos still due on the deposit and
defendant
refused not only to settle the matter but also to return the receipt
for
the deposit, whereupon a complaint was filed by the prosecuting
witness.
The latter further states that the document in question was written in
Chinese, which language she is unable to read, and that when Palanca
gave
it to her it was a receipt for the deposit.
The witness, Antonio
Deirit, testifies to having been present at the time the defendant
delivered
the 300 pesos to the complaining witness, Fulgencia Tuason, and also at
the time written in Chinese characters, on which occasion, according to
this witness, after the accused had read the document, he told the
complaining
witness that according to that paper she still had 2,050 pesos due her
and that he would undertake to settle the matter. Daniel Lamprano
corroborates
the testimony of this witness and that of the complainant stating that
he saw the sum of 300 pesos referred to upon a table, while a Chinaman
whom he did not know and the woman Fulgencia were in conversation
together
and he at the same time observed that the Chinaman had a paper in his
hand
which he subsequently put into a drawer in the table. It is of no
importance
that Lamprano did not know the Chinaman to whom he referred, because he
was known by the witness Deirit and by the complainant. Furthermore it
is to be observed that the combined testimony of the three id to the
effect
that the paper of which Lamprano spoke was the same document which had
just been delivered by the complainant to the accused. These witness
corroborated
each other's testimony by referring to the same occasion, time, and
place.
There is no reason
for believing that the complainant's statement in the petition
presented
to the Provost-Marshall General in September, 1898, to be the effect
that
she had in her possession a receipt for the deposit, was untrue. On the
contrary, it is to be supposed that when this statement was made she
was
really in a position to exhibit the receipt in case the
Provost-Marshal-General
should require its presentation. It can not be presumed that at that
time
she had formed the design of drawing up a complaint, both for the
reason
that the complaint was not presented until a year and a half later and
because there are no data upon which such a presumption may be based.
To
this we may add that as the deposit was actually made as shown by this
testimony of the two witness, it was natural and logical that the
complaint
should have demanded from the depositor the receipt as evidence
thereof.
Thereof, if that receipt was still in her possession, it is not
probable
that she would falsely pretend not to have it and assert the defendant
had concealed it against her will, because such an assertion would make
it impossible for her to make use of this document for the purpose of
collecting
the deposit until such time as its return to her should be made to
appear.
It is not credible that the defendant would voluntarily deprive herself
of such proof of the deposit, which would doubtless be the most certain
and efficacious is an action to enforce its collection, unless it be
fully
proven that she is impelled to act in this singular manner by some
interest
superior to the interest she must have in the collection of the 2,050
pesos
still remaining unpaid the amount deposited.
In view of the
testimony
in the record, supported by the reasons above set forth, one is
convicted
of the reality of the delivery by the complainant to the accused of the
document evidencing the deposit in question.
It is of no importance
that the document is written in Chinese and that neither the
complainant
nor her witnesses can read this language, inasmuch as from the evidence
in the record the true nature of the document may readily be inferred.
It is evident that the accused had great interest in obtaining
possession
of this document inasmuch as he was willing to sacrifice the sum of 300
pesos to that end. The delivery of this money by him to the complainant
is sufficiently proven by the evidence introduced. The interest of the
defendant stands in itself sufficient and convincing proof of the value
and importance of the document. It must be either the receipt for the
deposit
or nothing at all upon the facts presented by this case, and if the
latter
be the case, it can not be understood nor could it be satisfactorily
explained
why the accused should have displayed such an interest in obtaining its
possession. This consideration acquires greater force if one of the
same
keeps in view of the fact to which the witness Deirit testified, to the
effect that the defendant said to the complainant, after having read
this
document, that it appeared therefrom that she still had due her 2,050
pesos
from the 2,600 deposited after deducting the 250 pesos formerly
delivered
to her by Yu-Syna and the 300 which at that time had just been
delivered
to her by the accused the latter's refusal to return the document is
shown
in the record solely by the testimony of the complaining witness. No
other
witness testifies upon this point nor has any attempt been made to
introduce
evidence on the subject. Nevertheless we can entertain no reasonable
doubt
as to the truth of this fact. Supposing that the complainant had no
difficulty
in recovering possession of the document, unquestionably she would not
have failed to do so when it is considered that the recovery of the
document
was a matter of great interested to her as evidence of a deposit of a
considerable
sum of money. Furthermore, if this fact was not true, the defendant
could
have shown such to be the case from the first by simply returning the
document;
it was to his interest to do so, but nevertheless he has not done it.
The
failure to return the document up to the present time, notwithstanding
the criminal prosecution brought against him on this account,
conclusively
shows his determination to conceal the paper. There are some facts
which
do not require proof because they are self-evident; and the unvarying
attitude
of the defendant in this case is the most complete and convincing proof
of his refusal to return the document.
The concealment of
that document causes a positive injury to the complainant because it
dispossess
her of evidence of a deposit of considerable value, thereby making it
difficult
for her to enforce the collection of this sum by adequate means. For
the
purpose of proving the existence of this damage it is unnecessary to
inquire
whether as a matter of fact she has ever succeeded in collecting the
deposit
or not. The commission of the crime herein prosecuted is entirely
independent
of that subsequent and casual event of which, whatever it may be, can
in
no wise have any influence upon the legal effects of the concealment
already
consummated of the document is question.
The extent of a fraud
when it consists of the concealment of a document should be graded
according
to the amount which the document represents, as it is evident that the
gravity of the damage resulting therefrom would not be the same, for
instance,
in the case of the concealment of a document representing $30 as in the
cased of one representing $30,000. In support of this doctrine several
decisions of the supreme court of Spain may be cited, among others,
that
of April 23, 1880. The document concealed in the present case
represents
a value of 2,050 pesos, and consequently this must serve as a basis for
grading the penalty corresponding to the crime. The damage here in
question
results from the deprivation suffered by the complainant of the
document
evidencing the deposit and not of the loss of the deposit itself. The
concealment
of the document referred to does not necessarily involve the loss of
the
money deposited, and for this reason it would not be just to give
judgment
against the defendant for the payment of that amount.
The Court, therefore,
declares that the defendant should be convicted and sentenced to one
year
eight months and twenty-one days of presidio correccional with
the
corresponding accessories and the payment of the costs of both
instances.
The judgment appealed
thus modified is affirmed.
Arellano, C.J.,
Cooper, Willard and Ladd, JJ., concur.
Torres, J.,
did not sit in this case. |