GR L 4159; (February, 1908) (Digest)
FACTS:
Juan Gallego collected P37 from various residents of Buenavista, Iloilo, by representing that the money was for paying the necessary license to establish a cockpit in Nueva Valencia. Gallego subsequently opened and maintained the cockpit for three months but failed to pay the required license fee to the government. He was then prosecuted for estafa. Gallego claimed the money was for a school-teacher, but witnesses confirmed it was for both the teacher and the cockpit license. The defendant argued that no one was damaged because the contributors secured what they paid for (the cockpit operated for three months), and the government was not injured because he was separately prosecuted and fined an amount equal to the license for maintaining the cockpit without a license.
ISSUE:
1. Was Juan Gallego guilty of estafa, given that the contributors seemingly received the service they paid for (the cockpit was opened)?
2. Does a subsequent fine imposed on the defendant for maintaining the cockpit without a license relieve him from prosecution for estafa?
RULING:
Yes, Juan Gallego was guilty of estafa. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the lower court’s judgment.
The Court held that the fraud of the defendant was proven. He received the money for the specific purpose of paying it to the Government for a license but failed to do so. A corresponding prejudice resulted, not to the persons who paid the money (as they enjoyed the cockpit), but to the Government, which was deprived of the license fee.
The subsequent imposition of a fine upon Gallego for his violation of the law (maintaining a cockpit without a license) did not relieve him from a prosecution for estafa. The Court likened this to how the recovery of property wrongfully disposed of in other cases of estafa does not relieve a defendant from the effects of their act. The two offenses are distinct.
The judgment of the court below was modified by eliminating the provision requiring restitution of the P37 to the contributors, as the prejudice was found to be suffered by the Government, not the contributors. In all other respects, the judgment was affirmed.