Javier vs. People

Subsequent partial payments made after the commission of estafa do not alter the nature of the crime committed nor relieve the defendant from the penalty prescribed by law. The amount embezzled at the time of the commission of the offense, not the amount remaining unpaid after partial restitution, determines the applicable penalty under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

Alejandro Javier was formerly a sales agent of German and Company, Ltd., a commercial firm. His duties included preparing "purchase orders" for merchandise sold by him, subject to the manager's approval, and collecting the purchase price of sales made. The case arose from the discovery by the company's management of a large outstanding and uncollected account, with some persons whose names appeared in the invoices either not living at the specified addresses or denying any knowledge of sales made to them.

Alejandro Javier was formerly a sales agent of German and Company, Ltd. While in the employ of the firm, it was his duty to prepare "purchase orders" of such merchandise as were sold by him, subject to the approval of the manager. The collection of the purchase price of the sales made was also entrusted to him. Some time in January 1935, the management of the company discovered that there was a big outstanding and uncollected account and that some of the persons whose names appeared in the invoices did not live at the addresses specified, or if they were existing persons, they pretended ignorance of any sales made to them.

On February 7, 1935, the manager, Mr. Bergman, compiled a list (Exhibit A) of all sales by Alejandro Javier and gave it to Attorney Pedro Franco, who showed it to Javier. Javier declared that some of the customers appearing therein were solvent customers and would pay, but that most of them were fictitious. Upon request of Atty. Franco, Javier indicated the customers who were fictitious and those who were not. Thereafter, in a written confession (Exhibit B), he admitted having misappropriated the amount of P12,052.57 by means of fictitious orders he had made. To check up Alejandro's statement, Atty. Franco wrote letters to several of the customers requesting payment, but most of them returned. Nevertheless, Alejandro Javier was given a chance to repay the amount he had misappropriated. He agreed to pay fifty pesos (P50) monthly, but no more than four incomplete payments were made by him.

Charged with estafa in the amount of P12,052.57, it was proved at the trial that defendant had paid over to the company the sum of P62 on account of the amount embezzled. The Court of First Instance of Manila convicted him of the offense charged under paragraph 1 of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of from one year, eight months, and twenty-one days to five years, five months, and seven days of prision correccional, to indemnify German and Company, Ltd. in the amount of P11,990.57, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, to suffer the accessory penalties provided by the law and to pay the costs. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, this decision was affirmed in its totality.

• Admissibility of Admissions: Petitioner argued that he should not have been convicted on the strength merely of his admission contained in Exhibits A and B, which were repudiated by him as having been obtained through duress and compulsion, and therefore inadmissible.
• Penalty Determination: Petitioner contended that since he was able to make partial payments, the amount of P11,990.57 should serve as the basis for determining the penalty. Because the amount embezzled does not exceed P12,000, petitioner argued his case falls under the second paragraph of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, and he should be sentenced only to a minimum of one year, eight months, and twenty-one days and a maximum of two years, eleven months, and ten days.

• Voluntariness of Admissions: The respondent-appellee maintained that the admissions were voluntarily made, as both the Court of Appeals and the Court of First Instance found no duress or compulsion.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: The respondent-appellee argued that the conviction was not based solely on the admissions but on the facts and circumstances of the case laid before the courts a quo, which, considered together with the admissions, established a clear case of estafa beyond reasonable doubt.

• Admissibility of Admissions: Whether the petitioner's admissions contained in Exhibits A and B, allegedly obtained through duress and compulsion, were admissible as evidence against him.
• Penalty Determination: Whether the partial payments made by the petitioner after the commission of the crime should serve as the basis for determining the applicable penalty under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Admissibility of Admissions: No. The admissions were admissible, as both the Court of Appeals and the Court of First Instance found no duress or compulsion in their procurement. Moreover, the conviction was not based solely on the admissions but on the facts and circumstances of the case considered together with the admissions.
• Penalty Determination: No. Payment made subsequently to the commission of the crime of estafa does not alter the nature of the crime committed nor relieve the defendant from the penalty prescribed by law. The amount embezzled at the time of the commission of the offense determines the applicable penalty.

• Admissibility of Admissions: The Court stated that as to whether the admissions were made voluntarily or obtained by means of force or threat, both the Court of Appeals and the Court of First Instance of Manila found no such duress or compulsion. Furthermore, Alejandro Javier was not convicted on the strength of his admission or confession alone. The facts and circumstances of the case were laid before the courts a quo, and these, considered together with the admissions of the accused, wove out a clear case of estafa and pointed to the guilt of Alejandro Javier beyond reasonable doubt.

• Penalty Determination: The Court found no merit in the petitioner's contention that the partial payments should reduce the amount for penalty determination. The Court applied the well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that payment made subsequently to the commission of the crime of estafa does not alter the nature of the crime committed nor does it relieve the defendant from the penalty prescribed by law. The Court cited numerous cases supporting this rule, including U.S. vs. Ongtengco, U.S. vs. Rodriguez, U.S. vs. Sevilla, People vs. Velasco, People vs. Ylaya, People vs. Quingpua, People vs. Jardin, and People vs. Quintos. The Court also noted that the same rule obtains in Anglo-American law.

• Subsequent Payment Does Not Alter the Crime — Payment made subsequently to the commission of the crime of estafa does not alter the nature of the crime committed nor does it relieve the defendant from the penalty prescribed by law. The Court applied this rule to reject the petitioner's argument that his partial payments should reduce the amount for determining the applicable penalty, holding that the amount embezzled at the time of the commission of the offense controls.

• "As to whether said admission were made voluntarily or obtained by means of force or treat, we need only say that the Court of Appeals as well as the Court of First Instance of manila found no such duress or compulsion." — This passage establishes that the lower courts' factual finding of voluntariness was sufficient to reject the petitioner's claim of duress, and it underscores the deference given to lower court factual determinations.
• "Besides, Alejandro Javier was not convicted on the strength of his admission or confession alone. the facts and circumstances of the case were laid before the courts a quo, and these, considered together with the admissions of the accused, wove out a clear case of estafa and pointed to the guilty of Alejandro Javier beyond reasonable doubt." — This passage articulates the principle that a conviction may rest on admissions corroborated by other facts and circumstances, not solely on the confession itself.
• "It is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that payment made subsequently to commission of the crime of estafa does not alter the nature of the crime committed nor does it relieve the defendant from the penalty prescribed by law." — This is the canonical formulation of the doctrine that subsequent restitution does not affect the nature of the crime or the applicable penalty, which is the ratio decidendi for the penalty issue.

• U.S. vs. Ongtengco, 4 Phil., 144 — Cited as a controlling precedent for the rule that subsequent payment does not alter the nature of the crime of estafa nor relieve the defendant from the penalty prescribed by law.
• U.S. vs. Rodriguez, 9 Phil., 153 — Cited in support of the same rule regarding subsequent payments in estafa cases.
• U.S. vs. Sevilla, 43 Phil., 186 — Cited in support of the rule that subsequent payment does not affect the crime or penalty.
• People vs. Velasco, 42 Phil., 75 — Cited in support of the same rule.
• People vs. Ylaya, G.R. No. 35597 — Cited in support of the rule that subsequent payment does not alter the crime or penalty.
• People vs. Quingpua, G.R. No. 37770 — Cited in support of the same rule.
• People vs. Jardin, G.R. No. 41302 — Cited in support of the same rule.
• People vs. Quintos, G.R. No. 421125 — Cited in support of the same rule.

• Article 315, Paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — The provision under which the petitioner was convicted of estafa. The Court applied this provision in affirming the conviction and the penalty imposed by the trial court.
• Article 315, Paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code — The provision the petitioner argued should apply because the amount remaining after partial payments did not exceed P12,000. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the amount embezzled at the time of the commission of the crime controls.

Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, and Horrilleno, JJ., concurred.