FACTS:
Pedro Senal redeemed a parcel of land belonging to Andres Parcon (father of the accused, Doroteo Parcon) from previous purchasers and held it under a pacto de retro (sale with right of repurchase) for P246.25 (Mexican currency) and 1 cavan of paddy, possessing and cultivating it from prior to May 1903 until December 1906. Andres Parcon later received an additional P20 and 4 cavans.

In 1905, after Andres Parcon’s death, Doroteo Parcon visited Senal to inquire about the debt. Senal informed him it was about P500. Doroteo offered to definitively sell the land for P700, which Senal refused. Senal later gave Doroteo P40, for which Doroteo issued a receipt.

In December 1906, Senal discovered that the original bill of sale (Exhibit B) he kept had disappeared, allegedly stolen through his daughter-in-law, Claudia Bolivar. In April 1907, Senal learned that Doroteo Parcon had taken possession of the land. In June 1907, Doroteo sold the land to Roberto Pacificador. Senal alleged that Doroteo never paid him the redemption price.

Doroteo Parcon, however, claimed he paid Senal P356.25 (the total amount of the debt and retro sale) in May 1907, and Senal, upon payment, delivered the bill of sale (Exhibit B) to him. This claim was corroborated by Eduardo Celeste and two other witnesses who testified to seeing Doroteo at Senal’s house that month. Claudia Bolivar also denied stealing or delivering any document to Doroteo.

On August 15, 1907, the provincial fiscal filed a complaint against Doroteo Parcon for the crime of estafa, specifically alleging that he managed to steal or get hold of the bill of sale, took possession of the property without the knowledge or consent of Senal, and sold it without paying the redemption price. The lower court found him guilty and sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment and costs. Doroteo Parcon appealed the judgment.

ISSUE:
Was Doroteo Parcon guilty of estafa under Article 535, paragraph 9 of the Penal Code for allegedly committing fraud by purloining the bill of sale, taking possession of the land, and selling it without paying the redemption price?

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s judgment, acquitting Doroteo Parcon.

The Court found that, in view of the contradictory evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense, it could not be satisfactorily proven that Doroteo Parcon committed fraud by purloining the document of sale to the prejudice of Pedro Senal. There was no conclusive proof that the said document passed into Parcon’s hands through a criminal act, and thus, his actions were not established to be comprised within the provisions of paragraph 9 of Article 535 of the Penal Code (which penalizes fraud by withdrawing, concealing, or destroying documents).

The Court reiterated the principle that the innocence of the accused must be assumed, and unless culpability is fully and satisfactorily established, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, even if doubts were entertained. Since the evidence did not fully and satisfactorily establish his guilt, Parcon was entitled to an acquittal.