G.R. No. 7770, September 28, 1912
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO CARDELL, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendant, Antonio Cardell, was an agent for the West Coast Life Insurance Company in Manila. He was entrusted with Policy No. 7476 for delivery to Estanislao Labucay upon payment of the annual premium of P504. Cardell delivered the policy and collected the premium from Labucay but failed to remit the amount to the insurance company, instead appropriating it for his own use. He was charged with estafa. The trial court found him guilty of misappropriating P327.60 and sentenced him to five months of arresto mayor and to pay costs. Cardell appealed, raising issues on the sufficiency of the complaint, jurisdiction of the trial court, and the weight of the evidence.

ISSUE

1. Whether the complaint was sufficient.
2. Whether the trial court in Manila had jurisdiction over the offense, given that the money was collected in Cebu.
3. Whether the evidence supported the conviction.

RULING

1. Sufficiency of Complaint: The Supreme Court held that the objection to the sufficiency of the complaint cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, as no such objection was made in the trial court. Hence, this issue was not considered.

2. Jurisdiction: The Court ruled that the trial court in Manila had jurisdiction. Although the money was collected in Cebu, the contract of agency was executed in Manila, and it was Cardell’s obligation to account and remit the collected premiums to the insurance company’s office in Manila. His failure to do so constituted the estafa, and the offense was deemed committed in Manila where the obligation was to be performed. The Court cited analogous cases from Ohio and Texas, as well as its own precedents (U.S. v. Ongtengco, U.S. v. Jockers), supporting the principle that the place where the agent is obligated to account determines venue for crimes of misappropriation.

3. Merits of Conviction: The Supreme Court found the evidence sufficient to prove Cardell’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, it modified the trial court’s sentence. In addition to the imprisonment and costs, Cardell was ordered to return or indemnify the offended party the sum of P327.60, with the corresponding accessory penalties under Article 61 of the Penal Code, and subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

The decision was concurred in by the full Court.