G.R. No. 202: September 21, 1901
Case Title: THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. CARLOS RASTROLLO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
In a civil case, certain property, including 1,121 feet of hose belonging to Carlos Rastrollo, was attached via judicial order to secure a debt. The attached property remained in Rastrollo’s possession. With the consent of the attorney representing the attaching creditor, Rastrollo sold the hose to the Manila Fire Department in late March 1901. However, Rastrollo failed to promptly deliver the sale proceeds to the creditor’s attorney. He only deposited the money in court on June 4, 1901, which was the day after a criminal complaint for estafa (embezzlement) was filed against him.

ISSUE:
Whether the acts of Carlos Rastrollo constitute the crime of estafa or any other criminal offense under the Penal Code.

RULING:
The Supreme Court acquitted Carlos Rastrollo and reversed the appealed judgment.
The Court held that Rastrollo’s actions did not constitute estafa under Article 535 of the Penal Code. The property was not subject to a private bailment but to a judicial deposit, making the depositary (Rastrollo) akin to a public official. Therefore, the applicable crime, if any, would be malversation of attached property under Articles 395, 390, and 392 of the Penal Code.
However, the Court found that the elements of malversation were not present. Rastrollo sold the property with the knowledge and consent of the creditor’s attorney, with the agreement that the proceeds would be delivered to said attorney. There was no proof that Rastrollo appropriated or misapplied the proceeds for his own or another’s benefit; he ultimately deposited the money in court, albeit tardily. Consequently, no criminal liability was incurred. The irregularity was attributable to the creditor’s attorney, not to a criminal act by Rastrollo.