GR 3380; (February, 1907) (Digest)
G.R. No. 3380
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff‑appellee, vs. SIMON SCHNEER, defendant‑appellant
FACTS
– Simon Schneer acted as agent of Eladia Carvajal de Lanman to collect rents and remit them to her.
– Upon termination of his agency, he owed her ₱1,798.26, which he never paid, having used the funds in his own business and lost them.
– The rents derived from a Manila property jointly owned by Eladia (half) and a party represented by Gutierrez Hermanos (half).
– Gutierrez Hermanos managed the property, collected rents, paid expenses, and delivered ₱1,992 to Schneer.
– Accounting records showed Schneer credited himself with rents and disbursements he never actually received or made; many entries duplicated those of Gutierrez Hermanos.
– By April 20 1904, Gutierrez Hermanos owed Eladia ₱4,065.60; Schneer’s books showed he owed her ₱3,452.92 as of May 1 1904.
– The undisputed amount of ₱1,798.26 remained unpaid to Eladia.
– The complaint alleged conversion of ₱1,808.32 belonging to Eladia between 7 Feb 1901 and 24 Feb 1906, constituting estafa under Art. 535(5), Penal Code.
– Schneer pleaded not guilty, then sought leave to withdraw the plea and file a demurrer with a request for a bill of particulars. The trial court denied the request.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in (1) refusing Schneer’s request to withdraw his plea and demur to the complaint, and (2) refusing to order the prosecution to furnish a bill of particulars.
RULING
– The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err. While a defendant may file a demurrer before pleading, after entering a plea of not guilty the right to withdraw the plea and present a demurrer lies within the trial court’s discretion; the court properly exercised that discretion in denying the request.
– No statutory or procedural rule (including General Orders No. 58) obligates the government to produce a bill of particulars; thus the trial court correctly refused to order one.
– The evidence established conversion of Eladia’s funds, satisfying the elements of estafa under Art. 535(5).
– The conviction was affirmed, but the sentence was modified to one year, eight months and twenty‑one days of presidio correccional (instead of one year and two months), with costs awarded against the appellant.
The case was remanded for execution of the modified sentence.