People of the Philippine Islands vs. Wilson and Dolores

A subordinate is not exempt from criminal responsibility for obeying a superior's orders where he actively cooperates in the crime, knows of the criminal intent, and shares in the proceeds; flight after the commission of the offense is a circumstance indicative of guilt, and in estafa through falsification the exact identity of the defrauded entity is immaterial so long as the loss is sustained by a person other than the perpetrators.

Alfredo Dolores and Joseph L. Wilson were employees of San Carlos Milling Co., Ltd., a mercantile concern doing business in Manila. The company had banking and commercial dealings with the Bank of the Philippine Islands, the China Banking Corporation, and the Commercial Pacific Cable Co. The informations charged offenses committed with grave abuse of confidence against the company and the banks.

Alfredo Dolores and Joseph L. Wilson were employees of San Carlos Milling Co., Ltd., a mercantile concern doing business in Manila. According to the information in criminal case No. 35408, on or about September 26, 1927, in Manila, the accused, conspiring and confederating together, with grave abuse of confidence and intent of gain, falsified a cable or telegraphic dispatch. They prepared on a Commercial Pacific Cable Co. form a code cablegram reading “SCARLOSCO HONOLULU WYSUXMOOJL,” which deciphered as an instruction to deposit $100,000 with Irving Bank-Columbia Trust Co., New York for the account of China Banking Corporation, Manila, account of San Carlos Milling Co., Ltd. They wrote on the back thereof: “ALFRED D. COOPER By (Sgd.) ALFREDO DOLORES 227 David, Manila,” thereby causing it to appear that the message was prepared and sent with the authority and knowledge of Alfred D. Cooper, manager of San Carlos Milling Company, when in truth Cooper never authorized it. The falsified cablegram was then presented to the Commercial Pacific Cable Company for transmission.

According to the information in criminal case No. 35426, on or about September 29, 1927, the accused, employees or clerks of San Carlos Milling Co., Ltd., with grave abuse of confidence and intent to defraud and prejudice the company and the Bank of the Philippine Islands, conspired and falsified a mercantile document, namely check No. A-352046 against the Bank of the Philippine Islands for P200,000, by forging and simulating at the bottom and in the indorsement the signature of Newland Baldwin, manager of San Carlos Milling Co., Inc. The check was made to appear as signed by “SAN CARLOS MILLING CO., LTD. By NEWLAND BALDWIN For Agent.” Once falsified, the accused presented it for payment to the Bank of the Philippine Islands, falsely representing that it was authentic and duly signed by Baldwin, and succeeded in collecting P200,000, which they misappropriated and converted to their personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of San Carlos Milling Co., Ltd. and the Bank of the Philippine Islands.

According to the information in criminal case No. 35447, on or about September 28, 1927, the accused, employees or clerks of San Carlos Milling Co., Ltd., with grave abuse of confidence and intent to prejudice the company, conspired and falsified Manager’s Check No. 17444 of the China Banking Corporation, dated September 28, 1927, issued in favor of San Carlos Milling Co., Ltd. for P200,001, by forging, simulating, and imitating the signature of Newland Baldwin, manager, in the indorsement on the back thereof. The indorsement read: “For deposit only with Bank of the Philippine Islands, to credit of account of San Carlos Milling Co., Ltd., By NEWLAND BALDWIN For Agent.”

Dolores pleaded not guilty, and a joint trial was held. The evidence showed that he took direct part in and cooperated with Wilson by acts prior to and simultaneous with the perpetration of the crimes; that he cooperated in drafting the checks and other documents; that he cashed the check and withdrew the money from the bank; and that he received P10,000 from Wilson as his share in the embezzled amount. After the withdrawal of P200,000 from the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Dolores was seen in secret conversation with Wilson in Calle Herran, Paco; from that day he hid from the authorities; he registered at the Plaza Hotel under the name Jose Gil; he went to Sorsogon and Albay, where he represented himself as Patricio Lopez; and in Albay he attempted to board a foreign vessel but failed. The trial court found him guilty as principal by direct participation and in conspiracy with Wilson. The trial court made no pronouncement as to indemnity at the request of the interested parties, so civil responsibility was not involved.

• Obedience to Superior’s Orders: Dolores argued that he did nothing but carry out the orders of his superior, Joseph L. Wilson, and that he was consequently exempt from criminal responsibility.
• Intent to Benefit and Damage: Dolores assigned error to the holding that in preparing and sending the false cablegram, preparing and negotiating the false check, collecting its value, and preparing the false commercial documents, it was his idea to benefit himself and damage another.
• Defrauded Entity: Dolores assigned error to the holding that he wanted to defraud and damage, or defrauded and damaged, San Carlos Milling Co., Ltd. and the Bank of the Philippine Islands.

• Direct Participation and Conspiracy: The People, through the Attorney-General, argued that the evidence clearly showed Dolores took direct part in and cooperated with Wilson by acts prior to and simultaneous with the perpetration of the crimes, cooperated in drafting the checks and other documents, cashed the check and withdrew the money, and received P10,000 as his share, so he could not maintain that he merely obeyed his superiors and was not informed of Wilson’s intent to embezzle.
• Flight as Evidence of Guilt: The People maintained that Dolores’s behavior after the crimes—secret conversation with Wilson, hiding from the authorities, registering under the name Jose Gil, representing himself as Patricio Lopez in Sorsogon and Albay, and attempting to board a foreign vessel—clearly showed his guilt.
• Immateriality of Defrauded Entity: The People argued that the second assignment of error required no refutation because the conspirators carried away P200,001 and someone suffered the loss; whether the loss fell on San Carlos Milling Co., Ltd. or on the Bank of the Philippine Islands was immaterial.

• Criminal Responsibility for Obeying Superior’s Orders: Whether Dolores is exempt from criminal responsibility on the ground that he merely carried out the orders of his superior, Joseph L. Wilson.
• Intent to Benefit and Damage: Whether the trial court erred in holding that Dolores intended to benefit himself and damage another in preparing and sending the false cablegram, preparing and negotiating the false check, collecting its value, and preparing the false commercial documents.
• Defrauded Party in Estafa through Falsification: Whether the trial court erred in holding that Dolores defrauded and damaged San Carlos Milling Co., Ltd. and the Bank of the Philippine Islands, or whether the identity of the defrauded entity is material.

• Criminal Responsibility for Obeying Superior’s Orders: No. Exemption for obeying a superior’s orders requires that both the person giving the order and the person executing it act within the limitations prescribed by law; Dolores actively cooperated and knew of Wilson’s criminal intent.
• Intent to Benefit and Damage: No error. The evidence fully sustained the findings of the trial court, showing Dolores’s direct participation, cooperation, receipt of a P10,000 share, and flight after the crimes.
• Defrauded Party in Estafa through Falsification: No error. The conspirators carried away P200,001 and someone suffered the loss; whether the loss fell on San Carlos Milling Co., Ltd. or on the Bank of the Philippine Islands is immaterial, it being sufficient that the loss was sustained by a person other than the perpetrators.

• Criminal Responsibility for Obeying Superior’s Orders: The argument that Dolores merely followed Wilson’s orders was groundless. To exempt a person from criminal responsibility for obeying a superior’s orders, it must be shown that the person who gives the order and the person who executes it acted within the limitations prescribed by law. That was not the case. The evidence showed Dolores took direct part in and cooperated with Wilson by acts prior to and simultaneous with the perpetration of the crimes. He cooperated in drafting the checks and other documents, cashed the check and withdrew the money from the bank, and received P10,000 from Wilson as his share in the embezzled amount. He could not therefore maintain that he merely obeyed his superiors and was not informed of Wilson’s intent to embezzle. His behavior after the crimes further showed his guilt: after the withdrawal of P200,000 from the Bank of the Philippine Islands, he was seen in secret conversation with Wilson in Calle Herran, Paco; he hid from the authorities; he registered at the Plaza Hotel under the name Jose Gil; he went to Sorsogon and Albay, where he represented himself as Patricio Lopez; and in Albay he attempted to board a foreign vessel but failed. Flight after the commission of an offense, while not a presumption of guilt, is a circumstance indicative of guilt, as held in U.S. vs. Sarikala and U.S. vs. Virrey.
• Intent to Benefit and Damage: The evidence fully sustained the findings of the court below and left no doubt as to Dolores’s guilt. His direct participation, cooperation in drafting the documents, cashing of the check, withdrawal of the money, and receipt of a P10,000 share established his criminal intent and participation. His post-crime conduct, including hiding and using aliases, was indicative of guilt.
• Defrauded Party in Estafa through Falsification: The second assignment of error related to G.R. No. 30013, estafa through falsification of a mercantile document, and required no refutation. The conspirators carried away P200,001, and someone suffered the loss. Whether the loss fell on San Carlos Milling Co., Ltd. or on the Bank of the Philippine Islands was immaterial; it was sufficient that the loss was sustained by a person or persons other than the perpetrators of the crime. The trial court, at the request of the interested parties, made no pronouncement as to indemnity, so civil responsibility was not involved in the cases before the Supreme Court.

• Obedience to Superior’s Orders as Exemption from Criminal Responsibility — To exempt a person from criminal responsibility for obeying a superior’s orders, it must be shown that both the person giving the order and the person executing it acted within the limitations prescribed by law. The defense fails where the subordinate actively cooperates in the crime, knows of the criminal intent, and shares in the proceeds. In this case, Dolores’s direct participation, drafting of documents, cashing of the check, receipt of P10,000, and flight negated any claim of mere obedience.
• Flight as a Circumstance Indicative of Guilt — Flight after the commission of an offense does not constitute a presumption of guilt, but it is a circumstance indicative of guilt. The Court applied this doctrine to Dolores’s hiding from authorities, use of aliases, travel to Sorsogon and Albay, and attempted boarding of a foreign vessel.
• Materiality of the Defrauded Party in Estafa through Falsification — In estafa through falsification, the exact identity of the defrauded entity is immaterial; it is sufficient that the loss was sustained by a person or persons other than the perpetrators. The Court applied this where the conspirators carried away P200,001 and either San Carlos Milling Co., Ltd. or the Bank of the Philippine Islands suffered the loss.
• Conspiracy and Direct Participation — One who cooperates in the drafting, negotiation, and cashing of falsified documents, and who receives a share of the proceeds, is a principal by direct participation in a conspiracy. The Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that Dolores was guilty as principal by direct participation and in conspiracy with Wilson.

• "In order to work exemption from criminal responsibility for obeying the orders of a superior, it must be shown that the person who gives the order and the person who executes it acting within the limitations prescribed by law." — This passage states the controlling rule on when obedience to a superior’s orders may exempt a subordinate from criminal responsibility; the Court used it to reject Dolores’s defense.
• "The evidence of record clearly shows that the defendant Alfredo Dolores took direct part in, and cooperated with his codefendant Joseph L. Wilson by means of acts prior to, and simultaneous with, the perpetration of the crimes in question." — This passage, quoted from the Attorney-General’s brief and adopted by the Court, establishes Dolores’s direct participation and cooperation, defeating his claim of mere obedience.
• "The flight of a person after the commission of an offense, while it does not constitute a presumption of guilt, is nevertheless a circumstance indicative of his guilt (U. S. vs Sarikala, 37 Phil., 486; U. S. vs. Virrey, 37 Phil., 618)." — This passage defines the flight doctrine and cites the precedents relied upon by the Court in evaluating Dolores’s post-crime conduct.
• "Whether the loss fell on the San Carlos Milling Co., Ltd., or on the Bank of the Philippine Islands is immaterial; it is sufficient that it was sustained by a person or persons, other than the perpetrators of the crime." — This passage states the rule on the immateriality of the defrauded entity in estafa through falsification and explains why the second assignment of error failed.

• U.S. vs. Sarikala, 37 Phil. 486 — Cited for the rule that flight after the commission of an offense, while not a presumption of guilt, is a circumstance indicative of guilt.
• U.S. vs. Virrey, 37 Phil. 618 — Cited together with U.S. vs. Sarikala for the same rule on flight as evidence of guilt.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.