GUZMAN V CA Digest

This has been the consistent ruling of this Court in cases
Petitioner: Joaquin Guzman where a sales agent misappropriates or fails to turn over
Respondent: Court of Appeals to his principal proceeds of things or goods he was
G.R. No. L-9572, July 31, 1956 commissioned or authorized to sell for the latter.
DOCTRINES: "Swindling (estafa):

An agent, unlike a servant or messenger, has both the
physical and judicial possession of the goods received in (2) With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
agency, or the proceeds thereof, which takes the place
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of
of the goods after their sale by the agent. His duty to turn another, money, goods, or any other personal property
over the proceeds of the agency depends upon his received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for
discharge, as well as the result of the accounting administration, or under any other obligation involving the
between him and the principal; and he may set up his duty to make delivery of, or to return the same, even though
such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond;
right of possession as against that of the principal until or by denying having received such money, good, or other
the agency is terminated. property;”
FACTS: Joaquin Guzman was a travelling sales agent. It is an essential element of the crime that the money or
He left Manila with 45 cases of assorted La Tondena goods misappropriated or converted by the accused to
wine with truck driver Andres Buenaventura and helper the prejudice of another was received by him "in trust or
Federico Cabacungan. On the way to Ilocos Norte, on commission, or for administration, or under any other
Guzman made sales amounting to P4, 873. 62. obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to
retain the same." HOWEVER, no such allegation
They reached Ballesteros, Cagayan, parked the appeared in the information filed by Enrique Go.1
truck and slept inside through the night of March 5, 1953. Consequently, we agree with appellant that he can not
In the morning of March 6, Guzman told the driver that be convicted of the crime of Estafa as defined above.
he lost P2, 840 and his firearm license.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed, and
While on their way home, Guzman entrusted appellant Joaquin Guzman acquitted of the crime of
P2,033.62 to the driver to be delivered to manager qualified theft. Appellant should, however, be held in
Enrique Go while he returns to Ballesteros to execute custody pending the filing of another information against
and affidavit regarding the alleged theft. him for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1,
subparagraph (b), of the Revised Penal Code. Without
The driver gave the money to Go and Go costs in this instance. So ordered.
reported the matter to the Philippine Constabulary. The
PC investigators and Go picked Guzman at his house at
Aparri on March 7, 1953, after having failed to see
Guzman at Ballesteros the previous night. Guzman
claimed he only had P3 with him.
 March 10, 1953, Guzman requested Go to defer

the filing of the criminal complaint until March 16,
1953, on which date he promised to refund the
amount lost.
 March 17, 1953, Guzman paid the amount of
Pl,500 to Go.
 April 1, 1953, Guzman was prosecuted for
qualified theft for the shortage of P804.70.
ISSUE: Whether or not Guzman was guilty of Theft.

1
RULING: The court ruled he was not guilty of Theft but “That on or about the 6th day of March, 1953, in the municipality of Aparri,
should have been guilty of Estafa (1) (b). province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said accused Joaquin Guzman, while in the employ of Enrique Go and with
grave abuse of confidence did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and
Guzman converted to his own use proceeds of sales of feloniously, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of
merchandise delivered to him as agent, which he persons nor force upon things, without the consent of the owner Enrique Go
received in trust for and under obligation to deliver and alias Ngo Yat, take and carry away for his personal use and benefit the sum of
eight hundred four pesos and seventy centavos (F804.70) to the damages and
turn over to his principal, he is guilty of the crime of prejudice of said Enrique Go alias Ngo Yat, in the amount of P804.70."
estafa as defined by Article 315, paragraph 1,
subparagraph (e), of the Revised Penal Code.

GUZMAN V CA Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GUZMAN V CA Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GUZMAN V CA Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This has been the consistent ruling of this Court in cases

DOCTRINES: "Swindling (estafa):

 March 10, 1953, Guzman requested Go to defer

ISSUE: Whether or not Guzman was guilty of Theft.

You might also like