GR L 58476; (September, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-58476, September 2, 1983
Fernando Ong, Petitioner, v. The Court of Appeals and Judge P. Purisima, Respondents.
FACTS
An information for estafa was filed against petitioner Fernando Ong before the Court of First Instance of Manila on January 17, 1979. The charge alleged that Ong received several units of machinery from Tramat Mercantile, Inc., under a trust receipt agreement, obligating him to remit the sale proceeds or return the goods within ninety days or upon demand. He allegedly failed to do either. Subsequently, on April 2, 1979, Tramat Mercantile, Inc., filed a separate civil complaint for sum of money against Ong. The parties later entered into a compromise agreement to settle this civil claim, which the trial court approved in a judgment dated March 27, 1980.
ISSUE
Whether the subsequent compromise agreement in the civil case novated the original trust receipt obligation, thereby extinguishing Ong’s criminal liability for estafa and warranting the dismissal of the criminal case.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the denial of the motion to dismiss the criminal case. The Court ruled that novation does not extinguish criminal liability for estafa once the crime has been consummated and the information has been filed. The legal logic is anchored on the distinction between civil and criminal liability and the state’s exclusive prerogative over criminal prosecution. While novation may potentially prevent the rise of criminal liability if it occurs before the state intervenes, it cannot abate a prosecution already instituted. Once the justice authorities have taken cognizance of the crime and filed the action in court, the offense is considered an act against the state. The offended party’s subsequent private compromise cannot divest the state of its power to exact criminal punishment. The Penal Code does not recognize novation as a mode of extinguishing criminal liability. The compromise agreement only affected the civil aspect of the obligation. Therefore, the Court of Appeals committed no grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the consummated crime of estafa was not novated by the later settlement.