GR L 3661; (November, 1907) (Digest)
G.R. No. L‑3661
November 6, 1907
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff‑appellee,
vs.
LAUREANO RODRIGUEZ, defendant‑appellant.
—
FACTS
– Laureano Rodriguez was employed from Jan 1904 to Mar 13, 1906 as agent‑clerk of the copartnership Herranz & Garriz, operating a branch in Bacon, Sorsogon.
– He received money and goods to purchase and sell abaca for the firm and was obligated to render monthly accounts.
– Upon his dismissal a final inventory showed a shortage of ₱4,049.70. Rodriguez acknowledged the shortage and executed a document stating he had disposed of the funds, promising to repay on demand.
– He confessed that ₱1,500 of the shortage was used to pay family debts in Spain and that his wife’s separate store received goods and money from the firm, leading to falsified entries in his books.
– The prosecution proved misappropriation of ₱1,500 for personal benefit; the remainder of the shortage was attributed to accounting errors and carelessness.
– Rodriguez was convicted of estafa under Art. 534(2) & Art. 535(5) of the Penal Code and sentenced to 2 years 11 months 10 days of presidio correccional, accessory penalties, indemnity of ₱1,500, and costs. He appealed.
ISSUE
Whether Rodriguez’s acts constitute the crime of estafa despite his claim of a promise to repay, and whether the shortage attributable to errors negates criminal liability for the entire amount.
RULING
– The Court affirmed the conviction. It held that the misappropriation of ₱1,500 for personal use, without authority, fulfills the elements of estafa; the promise to repay after the fact does not extinguish criminal liability.
– The portion of the shortage attributable to bookkeeping errors or negligence does not negate liability for the proven fraud.
– No mitigating or aggravating circumstances were found; the abuse of confidence is an inherent aggravating factor in estafa.
– The judgment was modified only in the term of imprisonment: two (2) years of presidio correccional, accessory penalties (Art. 58), indemnity of ₱1,500 (or subsidiary imprisonment up to one year if insolvent), and payment of costs.
Thus, the appellate court affirmed the conviction and imposed the revised sentence.