GR L 5240; (November, 1909) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5240
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LINO EGUIA LIM BUANCO (alias LIM BUANCO) and LUCIANO DE LOS REYES, defendants-appellants.
November 19, 1909
FACTS:
Defendants Lino Eguia Lim Buanco and Luciano de los Reyes were jointly charged with the crime of estafa. The information alleged that on October 6, 1906, in Manila, they conspired and confederated to defraud El Banco Español-Filipino of P2,000. Lim Buanco drew a P2,000 check on the bank. Luciano de los Reyes, a bank clerk and bookkeeper responsible for Lim Buanco’s account, knew that Lim Buanco had insufficient funds. Nonetheless, Reyes, in collusion with Lim Buanco, falsely represented to the bank that Lim Buanco had sufficient funds by manipulating bank records and by endorsing the check with the word “corriente” over his signature, implying it was payable. Relying on these false and fraudulent representations, the bank was induced to pay P2,000 to Lim Buanco, which the defendants then converted to their own use, causing prejudice to the bank.
Both defendants were found guilty and sentenced to two years and ten months of presidio correccional, and to jointly and separately indemnify the bank for P2,273, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The defendants appealed, arguing that the crime charged was conspiracy, not estafa, and that it was merely an overdraft permitted by the bank.
ISSUE:
Whether the defendants were properly convicted of estafa, or if the acts described only constituted an unpunishable conspiracy under the Penal Code.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the trial court.
The Court held that the “conspiracy” referred to in the information was merely an agreement or understanding between the parties to work together to accomplish a fraudulent purpose, and not a separate, punishable crime of conspiracy under the Penal Code. The Penal Code only punishes conspiracy in specific, enumerated instances (such as conspiracy to commit treason, kill the King/successor, rebellion, or sedition), and not as a general common law offense. Therefore, no crime of conspiracy was charged against the defendants.
Instead, the defendants were properly charged with and convicted of estafa. The evidence conclusively showed that Reyes, as a bank employee, fraudulently manipulated the bank’s records and made false representations by endorsing “corriente” on the check, in collusion with Lim Buanco, knowing that Lim Buanco had no funds. These actions constituted deceit, which induced the bank to part with P2,000, causing it prejudice. The fact that other bank officers might have been careless in their duties did not negate the criminal character of the defendants’ fraudulent acts. The Court also rejected the contention that it was merely an overdraft intentionally permitted by the bank, finding all facts inconsistent with such a claim.