FIRST
DIVISION
THE
UNITED STATES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 9192
August
7, 1914
-versus-
ROSENDO
VILLAREAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
D
E C I S I
O N
MORELAND,
J :
This is an appeal from
a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila convicting the
accused
of the crime of estafa and sentencing him to four months and one day of
presidio correccional, to payment of costs of the action, and to
indemnity
the firm of Successors of C. Fressel & Co. in the sum of P 1,
036.11,
with subsidiary imprisonment in case on insolvency.
It is charged in the
Information in this case:
"That on or about the
31st day of January, 1913, in the City of Manila, P. I., the said
Rosendo
Villareal, having prior to that date as an agent of the firm of
Successors
of Fressel & Co., a copartnership duly organized and doing business
in the City of Manila, P. I., received several amounts for the purchase
of native hats, from which amounts on the date above stated, there was
a balance in his possession of P1,036.11, which the said Rosendo
Villareal
had received on deposit, commission or administration from the said
firm,
Successors of C. Fressel & Co., to wit, for the purpose of
buying
native hats for the said firm of Successors of C. Fressel & Co.,
the
said defendant did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
misappropriate, misapply and convert to his own use the said sum of
P1,036.11,
to the damage and prejudice of the of P1,036.11, Philippine currency,
equivalent
to 5, 180 and 11/20 pesetas."
We
are of the opinion that
there is not sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. It appears
from the testimony introduced on the trial that the firm of Successors
of C. Fressel & Co., was engaged in the purchase and export of
native
hats of various styles and qualities. Thus engaged it procured the
services
of the accused in this case to purchase hats of the individual makers
found
engaged in that business within a certain area and to sell them to the
company. It was the custom among the hat makers at that time to have
advanced
to them by their purchasers money sufficient to pay for material and
help.
The defendant having no money to make these advances and to pay for the
hats which he had engaged to purchase, certain sums were at various
times
advanced to him by C. Fressel & co. In return for the advances, the
accused at various times sold and delivered to the company quantities
of
hats at an agreed price. In the course of time and just prior to the
commencement
of this prosecution a liquidation of accounts resulted in disclosing
the
fact that the accused was in debt to Fressel & Co. for money
advanced
in the sum of P1,036.11.
It appears from the
testimony of Brokman, the manager of Fressel & Co. as well as from
the testimony of the accused, that the money advanced to the accused by
Fressel & Co. was in the nature of a loan and not a delivery of
money
to be used for particular purpose or to be returned. Brokman testified
that they purchased hats from the defendant at the price which they
could
agree upon; that an account was kept of the debits and credits of the
accused
in which he was charged with the sums of money advanced and credited
with
varying quantities of hats which he delivered to them; that the sum of
P 1,036.11 which appears as the balance in favor of the company did not
represent any particular or designated sum of money advanced to the
accused
but was obtained by subtracting from the total of the sums advanced the
total purchase price of the hats delivered. The accused testified that
the money which he had from the plaintiffs was received as a loan which
was charged to his account and which he promised to repay in hats which
he proposed to sell and deliver to them. He admitted that he owed the
sum
above mentioned but denied that he had used any money obtained from the
company for his own purposes as alleged, declaring that the sum
represented
the losses which he had sustained in the business occasioned by two
causes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
First, the neglect
or refusal of certain hat makers to whom the accused had advanced
considerable
sums of money to deliver to him the hats for the purchase price of
which
said sums had been delivered; and
Second, the company,
at various times during their commercial relations, refused to pay the
accused the price which was at a considerable loss.
This evidence is
uncontradicted,
and being corroborated, as it is, by other evidence in the case, We are
constrained to find that the accused has not violated any criminal law
and should be acquitted.
The judgment of
conviction
is reversed and the accused acquitted.
Arellano, C.J.,
Torres, Carson and Araullo, JJ., concur. |