G.R. No. 8834 ; September 9, 1914
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE B. VASQUEZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On the morning of December 27, 1912, in Iloilo, Eusebio L. Garcia was preparing to travel to an interior town. Fearing it was dangerous to carry all his money, he entrusted the sum of P300 to the accused, Jose B. Vasquez, for safekeeping as a deposit, with the express condition that Vasquez would return it upon Garcia’s request. Vasquez initially hesitated but ultimately accepted the money, promising to deliver it back when Garcia returned from his trip. A witness, Telesforo Gargantiel, was present during this transaction. Garcia later discovered his brother was in Iloilo and did not proceed with his trip. He returned to the hotel that same day and demanded the return of his money. Vasquez put him off, promising to pay in the afternoon or evening. At Garcia’s insistence, Vasquez issued a written receipt (Exhibit A) acknowledging the deposit of P300 and promising its return upon demand. Despite repeated demands over weeks, Vasquez refused to return the full amount, returning only P50. A complaint for estafa was filed against him.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in: (1) sustaining objections to certain questions during the cross-examination of the complaining witness, and (2) finding the defendant guilty of the crime of estafa.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding the defendant guilty of estafa.

1. On the Alleged Errors in Cross-Examination: The Court found no prejudicial error. The trial court sustained objections to the questions “Why did you not go to the bank or to somebody else to deposit this money?” and “Why did you not take that money along with you?” because the witness had already explained his reason: he left the money with the accused for safekeeping due to the perceived danger of carrying it on his trip. The availability of other means to safeguard the money did not negate the criminal liability arising from the accused’s misappropriation of the specific sum deposited with him under an obligation to return it.

2. On the Guilt of the Accused: The evidence conclusively established the elements of estafa under Article 535, No. 5, of the old Penal Code (now Article 315, 1(b), Revised Penal Code). The prosecution proved that the accused received the P300 in the nature of a deposit or for safekeeping (comodato), creating an obligation to return it upon demand. His subsequent refusal to return the money, his issuance of a receipt acknowledging the deposit, his partial payment of P50, and his recognition of the obligation on several occasions, all confirmed his guilt. The Court agreed with the trial judge that the accused’s testimony, which attempted to characterize the transaction as a loan, was “unbelievable” and “tangled,” serving only to convict him.

The sentence of six months of arresto mayor and an order to indemnify Eusebio L. Garcia in the amount of P250 (representing the balance after crediting the P50 payment) was affirmed.