GR L 25791; (September, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-25791 September 23, 1968
CARLOS B. GONZALES, petitioner-appellant, vs. EULOGIO SERRANO, in his capacity as City Fiscal of Manila, and LIBRADA ASIS, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Petitioner Carlos B. Gonzales filed a charge for estafa against respondent Librada S. Asis with the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila. The complaint alleged that on October 27, 1964, Asis bought assorted plastic flowers from Gonzales amounting to P10,172.00 on a C.O.D. basis. Asis paid P2,000.00 in cash and issued a check for the balance of P8,172.00. The next day, Asis requested Gonzales not to deposit the check due to insufficient funds, to which Gonzales agreed. On November 17, 1964, Asis made a partial payment of P5,556.00, bringing the total payment to P7,556.00, leaving a balance of P2,616.00. Asis claimed the agreement allowed her to return unsold items. After a preliminary investigation, the Assistant Fiscal recommended dropping the charge, finding the obligation civil in nature due to novation of the contract. The City Fiscal approved this, and the Secretary of Justice upheld the decision. Gonzales then filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Manila to compel the City Fiscal to file an information for estafa. The trial court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the City Fiscal of Manila can be compelled by a writ of mandamus to file an information for estafa against Librada Asis.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for mandamus. The Court held that: (1) The transaction between the parties, based on the evidence, was not a strict C.O.D. sale but appeared more like a sale on commission or credit, as Gonzales accepted a check, agreed not to encash it, and accepted partial payment later. (2) Even if the original agreement was C.O.D., the subsequent acts of the parties novated the contract into a sale on credit, converting their relationship into that of creditor and debtor, thereby precluding criminal liability for estafa. (3) The element of damage or prejudice essential for estafa was not sufficiently established, as Asis was willing to return unsold goods and Gonzales never demanded their return. (4) The City Fiscal’s duty to prosecute involves the exercise of discretion and judgment in appreciating evidence, which cannot be controlled by mandamus.