GR L 3872; (January, 1952) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-3872 January 24, 1952
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, demandante-apelante, vs. MA SU (Chino), demandado-apelado.
FACTS
The Provincial Fiscal of Cotabato filed an information accusing Ma Su of the crime of estafa. The accusation stated that on or about September 4, 1948, in Cotabato, Ma Su, as manager and cashier of the Capitol Trading Co. Ltd., received from Lino Casabar the sum of P1,600.00 as part payment for one rice mill. Ma Su promised to deliver the rice mill within one month or to return the money. Despite repeated demands, Ma Su willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously misappropriated and converted the money to his personal use, to the damage and prejudice of Lino Casabar. After the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial judge, motu proprio, issued an order dismissing the case. The Provincial Fiscal’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal by the government.
ISSUE
Whether the facts alleged in the information constitute the crime of estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The Court held that the transaction between Ma Su and Lino Casabar was a simple contract of sale with a partial payment. The P1,600.00 was a part payment of the purchase price, not money held in trust. Upon delivery, the money ceased to be the property of Casabar and became the property of the seller. If the accused failed to deliver the rice mill, Casabar’s remedies were civil in nature: either to demand rescission of the contract and the return of the payment, or to demand specific performance. The information contained no allegation that Ma Su employed deceitful means or false pretenses to induce Casabar to part with his money, which would have been necessary for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a). Furthermore, if there was any misappropriation, it would be a crime against the Capitol Trading Co. Ltd., of which Ma Su was manager and cashier, but the company made no complaint. The case involves a breach of a contractual obligation, not a criminal act of estafa.