GR 1874; (January, 1905) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1874 : January 18, 1905
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. ANGEL ONGTENGCO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
On or about June 26, 1902, Angel Ongtengco received jewelry valued at 1,510 pesos (Mexican) from Rufina del Rosario in Manila. The agreement was that Ongtengco would sell the jewelry on commission in Camarines and either return the proceeds or the jewelry itself by July 31, 1902. Ongtengco failed to fulfill this obligation. Despite repeated demands from del Rosario, he neither accounted for the jewelry nor paid its value. In April 1903, he paid 300 pesos and later delivered other jewelry as a guaranty, which was subsequently returned to him. A third party, Margarita Valenzuela, offered to pay the value using proceeds from a land sale, but this did not materialize. A complaint for estafa was filed on February 26, 1904. The trial court convicted Ongtengco, sentencing him to the maximum degree of the penalty.
ISSUE:
Whether the accused, Angel Ongtengco, is guilty of the crime of estafa under the Penal Code.
RULING:
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found all elements of estafa under Article 534(2) and Article 535(5) of the Penal Code present: (1) deceit, as Ongtengco received the jewelry under the false pretense of selling it on commission; and (2) damage or prejudice caused to the owner, who was deprived of her property. The subsequent partial payment, delivery of a guaranty, or offers of reimbursement by third parties do not extinguish criminal liability. The crime was consummated upon misappropriation. No mitigating or aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the crime. Accordingly, the penalty of arresto mayor should be imposed in its medium degree, not its maximum degree as the trial court did. The Supreme Court sentenced Ongtengco to six months of arresto mayor, with the corresponding accessory penalties, and ordered him to return the jewelry or pay its value (less the 300 pesos already paid), with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.