G.R. No. L-10017; April 17, 1957
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PO KEE KAM, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendant-appellant, Po Kee Kam, was convicted of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code by the Court of First Instance of Manila. The complainant, Vilco Trading Corporation, shipped goods to the appellant in Tacloban, Leyte, on consignment, as per invoices (Exhibits A, A-1, A-6, and 4) containing a stipulation that the merchandise was received on consignment with the obligation to either return the goods or deliver the proceeds of sale to the consignor in Manila within 30 days. The aggregate value of these goods was P4,859. The appellant received the goods and the original invoices but did not sign them. Upon repeated demands by the complainant’s manager, the appellant stated he could not turn over the proceeds as he had spent them. The appellant claimed the transaction was a sale, not a consignment, and that he had made a partial payment of P1,500. He also alleged that his store burned on April 12, 1951, causing the loss of the goods covered by one invoice (Exhibit A-6) and his financial incapacity. The lower court found him guilty of misappropriating the sale proceeds after deducting the P1,500 payment.

ISSUE

1. Whether the evidence sustains the conviction for estafa.
2. Whether the appellant’s liability is merely civil, not criminal.
3. Whether the goods were lost due to an act of God (fire).
4. Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction and whether venue was proper.

RULING

1. Yes, the evidence sustains the conviction. The appellant received the goods and invoices stipulating the consignment terms without protest, and his admission to the complainant’s manager that he could not deliver the proceeds because he had spent them implied an acknowledgment of his fiduciary duty as a commission agent, establishing misappropriation.
2. No, the liability is criminal, not merely civil. The appellant’s fiduciary obligation to account for and deliver the proceeds of the sale, arising from the consignment agreement, was violated by his misappropriation, constituting estafa.
3. No, the defense of loss due to an act of God is unmeritorious. There was no evidence that the goods covered by Exhibit A-6 were destroyed in the alleged fire, and the fire could not have affected goods shipped over a year later (Exhibits 4, A-1, and A, dated 1952).
4. Yes, the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction, and venue was proper. Under the agreement, the appellant was obligated to account and deliver the proceeds in Manila. Following established jurisprudence, the failure to render accounts at the agreed place means an element of the crime of estafa (embezzlement) is deemed to have occurred in Manila, conferring jurisdiction and proper venue there.
The decision was modified to correct the indemnity amount to P3,359 (P4,859 total value minus P1,500 accounted for) and was affirmed in all other respects.