GR L 3779; (November, 1907) (Digest)
G.R. No. L‑3779
November 13, 1907
PARTIES United States (plaintiff‑appellee) v. Otis G. Freeman (defendant‑appellant).
—
FACTS
1. Employment & Custody of Funds Freeman was employed as clerk‑manager of the steamship department of Castle Bros., Wolf & Sons (the “Company”) and was entrusted with large sums of money received on deposit for the Company.
2. Alleged Misappropriation The complaint alleged that, on or about 13 January 1906, Freeman willfully and feloniously appropriated ₱3,500 (equivalent to 17,500 pesetas) belonging to the Company, without its consent, thereby committing estafa.
3. Bill of Particulars Freeman moved for a bill of particulars to specify the exact amounts, payors, and whether the ₱3,500 was a single sum or an aggregation. The trial court denied the motion. The prosecutor later filed its own bill of particulars, detailing cash‑book entries for 13 January 1906 and alleging a false entry for “Cash Captain ₱3,550,” which was purportedly a fictitious payment.
4. Trial Findings The trial court found:
– Freeman had been in the Company’s employ for about three years.
– He was short in his accounts by an amount ranging from ₱2,700 to ₱3,000.
– In a written trial balance dated c. 30 June 1906, Freeman acknowledged a debt of ₱2,078.50 to the Company.
– The evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that he received and failed to return the ₱2,078.50.
5. Sentence The lower court sentenced Freeman to 1 year 9 months of presidio correccional and ordered restitution of ₱2,078.50 (or a subsidiary imprisonment of up to one‑third of the principal penalty if restitution was not made).
—
ISSUE
Whether the conviction and sentence for estafa are valid despite the initial denial of a bill of particulars, and whether the restitution amount should be limited to the amount proven by the evidence (₱2,078.50) rather than the alleged ₱3,500.
—
RULING
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, modifying only the amount of restitution:
1. Bill of Particulars The denial of Freeman’s motion did not prejudice his right to a fair trial because the prosecutor subsequently filed a detailed bill of particulars that satisfied the requirement of particularity under the applicable criminal procedure.
2. Amount of Misappropriation The evidence established, beyond reasonable doubt, that Freeman misappropriated ₱2,078.50. The alleged ₱3,500 could not be proved as a single, distinct misappropriation; thus, restitution was ordered only for the amount proven.
3. Sentence The original penalty of one year nine months of presidio correccional stands, with the restitution condition as modified.
Disposition: The judgment of the trial court is affirmed with the alteration that Freeman shall restore to Castle Bros., Wolf & Sons the sum of ₱2,078.50, or, failing restitution, serve a subsidiary imprisonment not exceeding one‑third of the principal penalty; costs awarded to the United States.