G.R. No. 3188

PARTIES:
Plaintiff-Appellee: The United States
Defendant-Appellant: Alec Kiene

FACTS:
Alec Kiene, an insurance agent for the China Mutual Life Insurance Company, received a sum of ₱1,539.20 for his employers but failed and refused to remit these funds. Consequently, he was convicted of estafa in the Court of First Instance of Manila and sentenced to one year and six months imprisonment, along with costs. The defense argued that the prosecution failed to prove Kiene’s obligation to turn over the collected funds. Specifically, they contested the admission of a purported agency contract signed by Kiene, as its authenticity and the signature’s attribution were not unequivocally established by the witness. An admission letter written by Kiene acknowledging the collection of funds was also presented and contested.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in admitting the agency contract and in finding the defendant guilty of estafa, considering the alleged lack of formal proof of the agency contract and the defendant’s obligation to deliver the collected funds to his principal.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court held that the obligation of an agent to deliver funds to his principal is established by Article 1720 of the Civil Code, which mandates that every agent must give an account of their transactions and pay the principal all that they have received by virtue of the agency. The existence of the agency and the collection of funds on behalf of the principal, once established, create this legal obligation. The Court found the execution of the defendant’s admission letter to be conclusively proven and properly admitted. While acknowledging potential flaws in the formal identification of the signature on the agency contract, the Court deemed it unnecessary to rely solely on that document, as the agency relationship and the defendant’s duty were sufficiently established by other evidence and the provisions of the Civil Code. The Court found that the lower court imposed an incorrect penalty, not properly applying the prescribed range for the offense defined under Article 535, paragraph 5, in conjunction with Article 534, paragraph 3 of the Penal Code, and also failed to impose accessory penalties. Therefore, the sentence was reversed, and a penalty of one year, eight months, and twenty-one days of presidio correccional was imposed, along with accessory penalties, restitution of the collected sum (which was corrected to ₱1,550.30), subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and costs.