G.R. No. 1877 : April 29, 1905

FACTS:
Ricardo Gutierrez was a collector of contributions for the provincial treasurer of Rizal. He was charged with the crime of estafa for allegedly appropriating the sum of $91.86, gold. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to four months and one day of arresto mayor and to pay the embezzled amount (which was understood to have been paid from funds received by the treasurer from Gutierrez).

The evidence showed that Gutierrez regularly turned over collected sums to the treasurer or his deputy, and these were entered in the books. The entries were compared with the stubs of the receipts he issued to taxpayers. Months after his collections for July to November 1902, a discrepancy was discovered between the amounts Gutierrez reported and the totals from the receipt stubs. The provincial treasurer demanded that Gutierrez reimburse the unentered balance. Gutierrez initially denied leaving any sum unentered. However, after the treasurer insisted and showed him the stubs, Gutierrez, fearing a complaint, promised to pay the amount. He paid it the next day, explaining that the omission was perhaps due to forgetfulness and his many duties.

ISSUE:
Whether the evidence is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ricardo Gutierrez is guilty of the crime of estafa (embezzlement) through misappropriation.

RULING:
The Supreme Court REVERSED the judgment of the trial court and ACQUITTED Ricardo Gutierrez.

The Court held that the evidence failed to establish the criminal intent (animus lucrandi) necessary for the crime of estafa. There was no satisfactory proof that Gutierrez, when he failed to enter the sum, intended to appropriate it. The Court reasoned that Gutierrez knew he could not successfully deny receiving the money because the receipt stubs would prove the collection. His initial denial and subsequent prompt payment upon being confronted with the stubs did not constitute conclusive proof of criminal misappropriation. His conduct was equally consistent with an innocent omission due to negligence or mistake.

Applying the presumption of innocence and the rule that doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused (Section 57, General Orders No. 58), the Court found that Gutierrez’s liability had not been proven satisfactorily. Therefore, he was entitled to an acquittal. Costs were adjudged de oficio.