G.R. No. L-10149, December 2, 1914
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN AGUAS and LORENZO SASON, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The defendants, Juan Aguas and Lorenzo Sason, approached Mariano Sunglao to obtain fish from his fishery. The prosecution alleged that the fish were delivered to the defendants for sale on commission, obliging them to return either the proceeds or the fish, with Tuesdays set as settlement days. In contrast, the defendants contended that they purchased the fish on credit, thereby acquiring ownership, with no obligation to redeliver the fish or proceeds under a commission arrangement. The defendants made partial payments, reducing their indebtedness to P458.70. Sunglao, believing the defendants’ refusal to pay constituted estafa, filed a criminal complaint. During the proceedings, a written agreement between the parties acknowledged the debt as “the value of the fish which we have received from said Don Mariano Sunglao for the purpose of sale” and stipulated payment terms. Notably, in his testimony during the preliminary investigation, Sunglao explicitly stated that he sold the fish to the defendants on credit.

ISSUE:
Whether the transaction between the parties was a sale on credit (civil obligation) or a delivery for sale on commission (fiduciary obligation that could give rise to estafa).

RULING:
The Supreme Court REVERSED the judgment of the Court of First Instance and ACQUITTED the accused. The Court held that the evidence, particularly the complaining witness’s own testimony during the preliminary investigation, established that the fish were sold to the defendants on credit. Sunglao’s statement that he “agreed to let them have my fish on credit” conclusively demonstrated that the transaction created a purely civil obligation of debt, not a fiduciary relationship essential for the crime of estafa. The written agreement also lacked any indicia of a criminal breach. Consequently, the defendants’ failure to pay constituted a civil, not criminal, liability. The Court reserved Sunglao’s right to pursue a civil action for the collection of the sum owed. Costs were adjudged de oficio.