G.R. No. L-9811; April 22, 1957
George L. Tubb, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines and the Court of Appeals, respondents.

FACTS

On August 15, 1947, petitioner George L. Tubb convinced complainant William R. Quasha to invest P6,000.00 in a rattan business, with the understanding that the money would be used exclusively to purchase rattan in Southern Luzon for resale in Manila, the rattan would be brought to Manila within a few days, and the profit would be divided equally after returning Quasha’s capital. Quasha delivered the money on August 16, 1947. Tubb later sent a telegram from Calauag, Quezon, asking Quasha to procure a forestry license, which Quasha did despite it being unnecessary for purchase. After September 16, 1947, Quasha could not locate Tubb, who had left Calauag. In 1948, Quasha met Tubb by chance at the Manila Hotel and asked about the money; Tubb replied there was no use telling what happened but promised to try to repay it. Tubb later absconded again. The defense claimed the money was used to buy rattan that spoiled due to typhoons, but Tubb did not testify. The trial court convicted Tubb of estafa under Article 315, subsection 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court of Appeals modified the conviction to estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a), finding that Tubb’s actions, including the request for an unnecessary license, were part of a scheme to deceive, and there was no lawful partnership.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a grave error in convicting the petitioner of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) when the information charged him under Article 315, paragraph 1(b).
2. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not acquitting the petitioner under the established facts.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that the Court of Appeals erred in convicting Tubb under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) because the information specifically charged him under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) for misappropriation of funds received in trust. The elements of the offense under paragraph 2(a), such as false pretenses executed prior to or simultaneously with the fraud, were not alleged in the information, and a conviction under that paragraph would violate Tubb’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the accusation. However, based on the findings of fact by the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court affirmed Tubb’s guilt but under the correct provision, Article 315, paragraph 1(b). The evidence showed misappropriation: Tubb disappeared after receiving the money, failed to account for it, and impliedly admitted misusing it when confronted at the Manila Hotel. The Court rejected the defense of a lawful partnership and the claim that no demand was made, noting Quasha’s inquiry at the hotel was tantamount to a demand and that demand is not a requisite for the crime but merely circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals was affirmed, with the modification only as to the legal basis for the conviction.