GR L 47709; (April, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47709; April 14, 1941
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DAVID SANTOS Y CRUZ, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
An information for estafa was filed against the defendant, David Santos y Cruz, on March 1, 1940. He was accused of defrauding Gan Cio Tan, owner of “Tablera la Confianza,” by falsely pretending to be building a house in Quezon City and to possess cash to pay for building materials. Through these representations, he induced Gan Cio Tan to accept his order for lumber valued at P850, under the express obligation to pay cash upon completion of delivery. The information alleged the accused knew these pretenses were false as he had no money to pay, and he subsequently converted the lumber to his personal use, to the prejudice of the offended party. The information further alleged the defendant was a recidivist. Initially, the defendant pleaded not guilty but later, with the court’s leave, withdrew that plea and substituted it with a plea of guilty. The trial court then convicted him and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of four months and one day of arresto mayor to one year and one day of prision correccional, and to indemnify the offended party P850, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
ISSUE
Whether the defendant should be acquitted on the ground that the delivery of goods was made on credit, giving rise only to civil liability, despite his plea of guilty to the charge of estafa.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court held that the defendant’s plea of guilty constituted an admission of all the material allegations in the information. The information’s allegations—that the defendant, with intent to defraud, made false pretenses about building a house and having funds to pay cash upon delivery, which he knew were false, and then converted the materials—sufficiently defined the crime of estafa under Article 315, Section 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The claim of a credit transaction was not supported by the information’s allegations, which specified an express obligation for cash payment upon delivery.
Regarding the penalty, the prescribed penalty for the amount involved (over P200 but less than P6,000) is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. The aggravating circumstance of recidivism was offset by the mitigating circumstance of a voluntary plea of guilty. Therefore, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified the sentence to a minimum of not less than one month and one day of arresto mayor and a maximum of one year and one day of prision correccional. The appealed judgment was affirmed with this modification.