G.R. No. L-6748, March 16, 1912
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMBROSIO FIGUEROA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Ambrosio Figueroa, the president of the municipal board of health of Pililla, Rizal, was charged with estafa. The complaint alleged that in May 1909, he collected 25 centavos from Marcos Paulete and 50 centavos from Crispulo Masaya as slaughter fees but appropriated the sums instead of delivering them to the municipal treasurer. At trial, the evidence showed: (1) Figueroa received 25 centavos in cash from Marcos Paulete with the express instruction to deliver it to the municipal treasurer as Paulete’s slaughter fee; (2) Figueroa received pork valued at 25 centavos from Crispulo Masaya, with an agreement that Figueroa would pay its value (25 centavos) to the municipal treasurer as Masaya’s slaughter fee; and (3) Figueroa did not deliver either amount to the treasurer nor return them to Paulete or Masaya. The trial court convicted Figueroa of estafa for both transactions, sentencing him to two months and one day of arresto mayor and ordering restitution to both Paulete and Masaya.

ISSUE

1. Whether Figueroa committed the crime of estafa under Article 535(5) of the Penal Code for both transactions.
2. Whether the trial court (Court of First Instance) had jurisdiction over the case, considering the penalty imposed was less than six months imprisonment.

RULING

1. On the Estafa Charges:
Regarding the 25 centavos from Marcos Paulete: The Court found Figueroa GUILTY of estafa under Article 535(5). He received the money on a specific commissionto deliver it to the municipal treasurer for Paulete. His fraudulent appropriation of the money, to Paulete’s prejudice (as Paulete would have to pay the fee again), constitutes estafa.
Regarding the 25 centavos (value of pork) from Crispulo Masaya: The Court found Figueroa NOT GUILTY of estafa. The transaction was a simple sale of pork. Figueroa acquired ownership of the pork lawfully. The 25 centavos he obligated himself to pay to the treasurer was the purchase price, which was his own money, not money received from Masaya. The essential element for estafa under Article 535(5)the obligation to deliver or return the very same thing receivedwas absent. His failure to pay the price was a breach of a civil obligation, not a crime.

2. On Jurisdiction: The Court held that the Court of First Instance properly had jurisdiction. The complaint alleged Figueroa committed the crime in his capacity as a public official, which, if proven, would have warranted the additional penalty of disqualification under Article 399 of the Penal Codea penalty only imposable by the Court of First Instance. Jurisdiction, once acquired by the allegations in the complaint, is not lost even if the evidence later proves a lesser offense (estafa as a private person) punishable by a lighter penalty. Under Section 29 of General Orders No. 58, a court may convict a defendant of a lesser offense necessarily included in the charge.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the trial court was AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The conviction and penalty for estafa concerning the 25 centavos from Marcos Paulete were upheld. The order for Figueroa to reimburse Crispulo Masaya was REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Costs were imposed on the appellant.