G.R. No. L-9603; August 7, 1914
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAFAEL MELAD, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On April 19, 1913, Rafael Melad, an employee of Fernando Molina Martell, was dispatched by his employer to Tuguegarao to collect P130 from the manager of the Tabacalera Company. The money was duly delivered to Melad with the obligation to turn it over to Martell. Melad failed to deliver the money. For the prosecution, a witness testified that on April 27, Melad stated he had brought the money but lost it “in the game” and that he had to wait until his employer’s anger subsided. Another witness, a Constabulary soldier, testified he saw Melad betting and losing P30 at a cockpit in Tuguegarao on April 20. In his defense, Melad admitted receiving the money and his obligation to deliver it but claimed it was lost during his journey. He alleged he tied the money in a bag fastened to his saddle, and it disappeared along with a bundle of his clothing. He denied gambling the money away.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of estafa and in imposing the maximum penalty by erroneously considering abuse of confidence as an aggravating circumstance.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction but MODIFIED the penalty. The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility, which favored the prosecution’s version that the accused misappropriated the funds, likely through gambling, rather than losing them as he claimed. However, the Court held that the trial court erred in imposing the maximum penalty. The crime of estafa under the circumstances inherently involves abuse of confidence, which is an essential element of the offense. Therefore, it cannot be separately considered as an aggravating circumstance to justify the imposition of the maximum penalty. The proper penalty should be in the medium degree. Accordingly, the penalty was reduced to four months and one day of arresto mayor. The judgment of conviction was affirmed as modified, with costs against the appellant.