G.R. No. L-7705, December 24, 1957
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MIGUEL GERVACIO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Miguel Gervacio, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila for the crime of estafa. He was sentenced to imprisonment for six months and one day of prision correccional, ordered to indemnify the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office in the sum of P9,060, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The appellant appealed, raising only questions of law. The information alleged that the appellant received sweepstakes tickets from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office for the purpose of selling them, under the express obligation to account for and turn over the proceeds, but he failed to do so within a reasonable time and instead misappropriated, misapplied, and converted the tickets or their value to his own use, to the damage of the offended party.

ISSUE

1. Whether the lower court erred in not considering the case as civil in nature, particularly due to an alleged partial payment.
2. Whether the lower court erred in imposing the penalty under the second paragraph of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, instead of those prescribed in Article 316(3) or Article 318.

RULING

1. On the first issue: The Court held that the lower court did not err. The information sufficiently charged an offense under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, as the appellant’s act involved misappropriation or conversion with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence. The relation of agency does not preclude criminal liability for estafa. The acceptance of partial payment by the offended party does not extinguish criminal liability, as a criminal offense is committed against the People, and the offended party cannot waive or extinguish the criminal liability imposed by law.
2. On the second issue: The Court rejected the appellant’s novel argument that the penalty should be adjusted due to the decreased value of the peso since 1930, stating that adjusting penalties based on currency value changes is a legislative function, not a judicial one. However, the Court found that the penalty imposed by the trial court was not in accordance with the law. The proper penalty should be an indeterminate sentence. The judgment was affirmed but the penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to one year, eight months, and twenty-one days as maximum. All other aspects of the trial court’s judgment were affirmed.