G.R. No. 5753:
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GREGORIO MALLARI and JULIA SUNGA, defendants. JULIA SUNGA, appellant.
September 28, 1910
FACTS: On September 2, 1905, Gregorio Mallari, accompanied by his wife Julia Sunga, obtained 66 pieces of embroidered jusi cloth, valued at P198, from Emigdio Bundoc Taliri to sell on commission. Mallari agreed to deliver the proceeds or the unsold cloth by December 30, 1905. A contract was drawn up and read to the spouses. The next day, it was ratified before a notary, Simplicio Mangila, though Julia Sunga did not appear, stating her presence was unnecessary as she had already signed.
Mallari failed to fulfill his agreement, repeatedly telling Taliri the cloth was not yet sold, despite Taliri knowing otherwise. Believing he was defrauded, Taliri filed a complaint. The provincial fiscal charged both Gregorio Mallari and Julia Sunga with estafa.
The Court of First Instance sentenced both accused to six months’ arresto mayor and to jointly and severally indemnify Emigdio Bundoc Taliri in the sum of P198. Gregorio Mallari died on October 4, 1908, a few days before the judgment was rendered, so the case against him was dismissed. Julia Sunga appealed her conviction.
Evidence showed discrepancies regarding Julia Sunga’s involvement in the contract. While Exhibit B (a reproduction of the original contract, which disappeared) included her name, Exhibit A (a copy of the notary’s registry memorandum regarding the instrument) only listed “Don Gregorio Mallari, executor of the instrument.” The authenticity of Exhibit B was not proven.
ISSUE: Whether Julia Sunga is criminally liable as a coprincipal for the crime of estafa committed by her husband, Gregorio Mallari.
RULING: No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and absolved Julia Sunga.
The Court held that Julia Sunga’s mere presence when her husband Gregorio Mallari received the cloth and when the contract instrument was executed does not, by itself, determine criminal liability. Her accompaniment of her husband on that occasion does not mean she is criminally liable for his deceitful and fraudulent conduct, unless it is shown that she participated directly or indirectly in the appropriation or abstraction of the cloth received for sale on commission.
Crucially, the Court noted that the authentic notary memorandum (Exhibit A), which must be relied upon, only lists Gregorio Mallari as the executor of the instrument, with no mention of Julia Sunga. Her non-appearance before the notary for ratification further supports that she was not a party to the ratified agreement as suggested by the unproven Exhibit B.
The Court found that the fraud or deceit occurred after the receipt of the cloth, and the record lacked conclusive proof that Julia Sunga participated in the punishable acts committed by her husband. The aggrieved party himself testified that Mallari was the sole person who took charge of the cloth and came to terms of agreement with the owner. Therefore, Julia Sunga’s criminal liability could not be established.