SALVADOR PANLILIO, PETITIONER VS. COURT OF APPEALS, AND PEOPLE Of THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

From a decision of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte
convicting petitioner Salvador Panlilio of the crime of estafa, with
which he is charged, and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty
ranging from three (3) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correecional,
to indemnify complainant Roberto Suria in the sum of P300, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs,
Panlilio appealed to the Court of Appeals which, in due course,
affirmed said decision, except as to the indemnity due to Surla, which
was increased to P358.60. The case is now before us on appeal by
certiorari taken by Panlilio, upon the ground that the Court of Appeals
had erred:

1. “* * * in convicting the accused of estafa by conversion
   inspite of the fact that there is no direct, clear, convincing,
   positive and satisfactory evidence that he has misappropriated or
   converted the amount (in question) for his personal use and benefit”;
   and

2. “* * * in condemning the accused
   inspite of a finding that the transaction of the parties is that of a
   partnership and that there has not been any liquidation and accounting
   made”.

In support of the first assignment of error, petitioner asserts that
the information does not alleged: (a) that the sum of money in question
had been received “for safe keeping or on commission or for
administration or any other circumstances giving rise to the obligation
to make
delivery or to return the same”; and (b) that he “has
misappropriated or converted said amount for his personal use or
benefit”.

We find no merit in this pretense, it being specifically alleged in
the information that, on October 16, 1957, “accused Salvador Panlilio
received the amount of P1,000* * * from Roberto Surla in trust and
custody and for the purpose of buying commercial goods and articles for
4 Roberto Surla”, with the understanding “that if the said accused
failed to buy the said goods * * * he should* * * return the amount of
P1,000 * * * within one week from the date of receipt” thereof “to
the said Roberto Surla”; and that “instead of buying the said goods,
the said accused * * * unlawfully, feloniously and wilfully
misappropriated the said amount of P1,000.00 * * * to the prejudice and
damage of Roberto Surla”.

Although the evidence of the misappropriation by petitioner is hot
direct, u is not disputed that on October 16, 1957, petitioner issued
the following receipt:

“TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

Received from M. Roberto S. Surla the sum of one thousand pesos
(P1,000.00), Philippine Currency, for the purpose of buying commercial
goods and articles for the said Roberto Surla, to be resold in the
province of Camarines Norte, and if I failed to buy said goods, the
said amount be returned to him within one (1) week from today.

(Sgd.) SALVADOR PANLILIO
Recipient”

Moreover, the lower court found

“Despues de entregada la cantidad de P1,000.00 el
apelante, este salid de Daet el 17 de octubre para volver a Angeles
pero desde aquella fecha ya no volvio a aparecer en Daet para dar
cuenta del resultado del negocio de cigarillos y wisky. Tampoco
devolvio a Surla le cantidad de Pl,000.00 no obstante repetidos
requerimientos que le ha hecho, si bien la suegra y la esposa del
apelante dirigieron cartas a la esposa del denunciante Surla
premetiendo devolver la cantidad de P1,000.00 tan pronto como pudiesen
hacerlo”.

The foregoing facts suffice to establish the misappropriation imputed to petitioner herein.

With respect to the second assignment of error, it is true that
petitioner sought to prove that he and Surla had established a
partnership, and that the status of its accounts had not been
liquidated. However, the Court of Appeals gave no credence to
petitioner’s evidence, and the findings of said court on this point are
not subject to review on appeal by certiorari. Moreover, in the above
quoted receipt signed by the petitioner, he acknowledged that the sum
of P1,000 was delivered to him “for the purpose of buying commercial
goods and articles for the said Roberto Surla” and that if he failed to buy the goods, said amount would be “returned to Surla within one week”. Had a partnership been established, the goods would have been purchased for the partnership, not for Surla.

The lower court, likewise, found that sometime in October, 1957,
petitioner had bought 82 cartoons of cigarettes valued at P641.40,
which were stolen from his house on October 26, 1957. Deducting said
sum of P641.40 from the P1,000 received by him from Surla, there
results an unaccounted balance of P358.60, which petitioner was
sentenced by the Court of Appeals to refund Surla.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.