G.R. No. L-6675-81 May 26, 1954
Bienvenido E. Dollente, recurrente, vs. El Pueblo de Filipinas, recurrido.

FACTS

The accused, Bienvenido E. Dollente, a certified public accountant and a major in the Philippine Army, organized B. E. Dollente & Co., Inc., a corporation engaged in buying and selling surplus jeeps. He owned the majority of its capital stock and served as its President and General Manager. The corporation advertised the sale of jeeps, requiring cash deposits from prospective buyers with a promise of delivery within two to three weeks. The complainants, among others, made such deposits but neither received the jeeps nor had their deposits refunded upon demand. The Court of First Instance of Manila convicted Dollente in seven criminal cases for estafa, sentencing him to four months and one day of arresto mayor in each case and ordering restitution. The Court of Appeals modified the penalties to one month and one day of arresto mayor to one year and eight months of prision correccional in each case and adjusted the restitution amounts. Dollente appealed, arguing the transactions gave rise only to civil liability against the corporation, not criminal liability against him personally.

ISSUE

1. Whether the transactions gave rise to civil liability only, not criminal liability.
2. Whether the aggrieved parties’ remedy is against the corporation, not against Dollente personally.
3. Whether a principal stockholder of a registered corporation can be held criminally liable for misappropriation by the corporation absent a specific law.
4. Whether the three-fold rule under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code should apply to the penalties imposed.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties. On the first three issues, the Court held that Dollente was criminally liable for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 3(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The evidence established that the complainants dealt directly with Dollente personally, not merely in his corporate capacity, and entrusted their money to him as deposits for the future purchase of jeeps, not as partial payments for a completed sale. Dollente misappropriated these deposits by neither delivering the jeeps nor refunding the money. His personal written proposal to refund a deposit and admission of using personal assets to clear his name were inconsistent with his claim of acting solely for the corporation. The corporate entity could not shield him from personal criminal liability for his own acts of misappropriation. On the fourth issue, the Court applied the three-fold rule under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code. The most severe penalty imposable for each offense was prision correccional. Therefore, the total sentence should not exceed three times the length of that penalty. The Court modified the total penalty to be served to not more than three years and three days to five years and three days, affirming the restitution orders.