GR L 15923; (June, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15923; June 30, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BENJAMIN BENITEZ, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The accused, Benjamin Benitez, was employed by Jose Cua as a collector of rents from Cua’s tenants. In July and August 1956, Benitez collected rentals amounting to P540.00. He failed to turn over this amount or account for it to his employer upon demand. Subsequently, Benitez offered to work in Cua’s establishment, with P100.00 to be deducted from his salary monthly until the P540.00 was fully paid. Cua accepted this offer, and the agreement was reduced to writing. However, Benitez worked for only a few days and then ceased reporting for work. Cua then sent a demand letter for settlement of the account. Due to Benitez’s failure to pay, a complaint for estafa was filed against him. The Court of First Instance of Manila convicted him of estafa. Benitez appealed, contending there was no proof of misappropriation and that his written agreement with Cua converted any criminal liability into a mere civil obligation.
ISSUE
1. Whether the accused’s failure to account for and turn over the collected funds, without more, constitutes sufficient evidence of misappropriation for estafa.
2. Whether the subsequent written agreement for restitution between the accused and the offended party extinguishes the criminal liability for estafa.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
1. On evidence of misappropriation: The Court held that the failure to account for funds held in trust upon demand is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. Benitez admitted collecting the P540.00 and failed to account for or deliver it upon demand without providing any reason or explanation. This circumstance, coupled with his subsequent obligation to make restitution, clearly established that he misappropriated the money he was duty-bound to deliver.
2. On the effect of the restitution agreement: The Court ruled that criminal liability for estafa is not affected by compromise or novation of contract. Estafa is a public offense prosecuted by the state, and any subsequent agreement for restitution between the offender and the victim does not extinguish the criminal liability already incurred. Therefore, the written agreement between Benitez and Cua did not convert his criminal liability into a mere civil obligation.
The decision of the lower court was affirmed, with costs against the accused-appellant.