G.R. No. L-1319 : October 9, 1903
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. TOMAS ZAMORA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On July 10, 1901, in Manila, the defendant, Tomas Zamora, received various pieces of jewelry from Gregoria Covarrubias to sell on commission. Despite repeated demands from Covarrubias for the return of the jewelry or its proceeds, Zamora failed to do so, offering various excuses. On November 9, 1901, Covarrubias, having grown distrustful, obtained a receipt from Zamora listing the jewelry as evidence of the original delivery. An information was filed charging Zamora with estafa for converting the property to his own use. After trial, the Court of First Instance found him guilty and sentenced him to two years of presidio correccional. Zamora appealed. After the case was submitted on appeal, Zamora filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, alleging he had subsequently delivered the jewelry to one Daniel Nonato for sale on the same terms, and that Nonato had only recently paid him, enabling him to fully settle his obligation with Covarrubias. He attached affidavits from Nonato and Covarrubias, and a receipt dated November 5, 1901, from Nonato acknowledging receipt of the jewelry.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to convict the defendant of the crime of estafa.
2. Whether the motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence should be granted.

RULING:
1. On the Sufficiency of Evidence for Conviction: Yes. The Supreme Court held the evidence was sufficient to prove estafa under Article 535(5) of the Penal Code. The defendant’s failure to return the jewelry upon the owner’s demand, despite repeated requests over a period exceeding a year, constituted a conversion of the property to his own use. The Court rejected the defense that the November 9, 1901 receipt novated the contract into a sale, finding it was merely evidence of the original deposit. The custom of the trade, requiring the return of unsold jewelry within a short period, further supported the finding of conversion.
2. On the Motion for a New Trial: No. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The alleged newly discovered evidence was immaterial because the conversion, and thus the crime, was complete prior to November 5, 1901 (the date of the alleged delivery to Nonato), as proven by the owner’s demands and the defendant’s excuses before that date. Subsequent payment to the owner does not absolve a completed crime. Furthermore, the motion failed to show due diligence in obtaining the evidence for trial, as the defendant did not explain why he could not have located Nonato or presented parol evidence of the receipt’s contents at the original trial. The circumstances surrounding the alleged receipt were also deemed improbable.

The judgment of the Court of First Instance convicting Tomas Zamora of estafa was affirmed.