THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TOMAS JUMAWAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

A direct appeal on questions of law from the judgment of the City Court of San Carlos City finding
the accused-appellant guilty of estafa and imposing
upon him a four months and one day prison sentence.

The facts are undisputed and are set out in the trial Court’s
judgment of June 5, 1967, as follows:  It
is proven, even admitted, that the accused, being an agent on commission basis
of the Montel Discount Center, the Iloilo Enterprises
and the Piamonte, Bros., (to sell radios)^[1]
in a number of instances, collected various amounts by receipts, from customers
of the said business firms.  These collections
were turned over to the firms, except those which he collected in July and
August, 1965, pertaining to the Mon­tel Discount
Center, which he retained in his possession and refused to give or deliver to
the said Montel
Discount Center,
even after demand for their return, in the amount of Fifty Five (P55.00) Pesos.

“His reason for not turning over the said amount is because,
he said, his commission has not been paid and Mr. Manuel Piamonte,
his real original principal, a part owner and manager of the said Center, has
not paid and refuses to pay him his commission, on account of losses.  In fact, a near fight ensued between them in one eatery in Balintawak, Escalante, Negros
Occidental, because of the refusal of Manuel Piamonte
to account for his commission.

“The accused alleged, aside from lack of payment of his
accrued commissions, that he was to have received P1.50 per day as expenses in
collecting accounts from customers-debtors of the firm, which accounts were never paid by Mr. Piamonte, and according to his own estimate, is equivalent
to, or even more, than the amount he withheld.”

In finding the appellant guilty of estafa
under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code, for having
retained in his possession even after demand, his last collections in the
amount of P55.00, due to non-payment of his accrued commissions in the larger
amount of P65.00 earned on previous collections actually turned over, as well
as non-payment of his expense allowance
of P1.50 per day, the
trial court based its verdict solely on its rejection of appellant’s defense that he had such
right of retention under Articles 1912 to 1914 of the Civil Code.  These codal
articles pro­vide inter alia that the
agent may retain in pledge the things which are the object of the agency until
the principal effects the reimbursement of amounts advanced by the agent, and
indemnifies the agent for damages caused him, in the course of execution of the
agency.

The trial Court made no ruling whatever on appellant’s lack of
criminal intent and the absence of damage or prejudice to his principal.  Appellant contends that this was error.

We find for the appellant. 
The trial Court erred in convict­ing him of estafa
when the undisputed facts of record clearly show the absence of any criminal
intent on appellant’s part in having re­tained the amount of P55.00 from his
last collection, since the accrued commission in the larger amount of P65.00
due and pay­able to him for previous collections which he had turned over in
full had not been paid to him.  His
principal had not paid him a single centavo, either on account of his earned
commissions or his earned allowances at the rate of P1.50 per day, which should
have been paid to him at the latest upon his turn-over of his collect­ions.  The reason of business losses that his
principal gave for not paying him his earned commissions was certainly far from
being a valid one.  Under these
circumstances, unjustly exploited as appellant was, the Court holds that no
criminal liability attached to his act of retaining the amount which was even less than what was
actually and honestly due and owing to him by his principal.^[2]

We have noted from the
record that appellant’s testimony as to the amounts due him is totally unrefuted.  Worse,
the main prosecution witness was strangely silent on the renumeration due appellant, and when this was sought to be
brought out by defense counsel on cross-examination,
the trial Court blocked it by sus­taining the prosecution’s increased
objection.^[3]
Surely, this was most relevant to the issue, as appellant could not be expected
to work as a commission and collection
agent for nothing.  We cannot but condemn the prosecution initiated by the complainant against
the accused-appellant as an iniquitous and unwarranted act.

Damage or prejudice, as an essential element of estafa, was likewise not established.^[4]
Appellant’s principal could not claim any such damage or prejudice, for
appellant had retained and set off merely in part what was justly and long due
to him, with a balance still owing to him.

All these factors, the absence of criminal intent on appellant’s
part and lack of damage or prejudice caused to the principal, be­sides the
appellant’s proven good faith, entitle appellant to a verdict of acquittal.

The technicality invoked by the people’s counsel that the alleged
offended party, Montel
Discount Center
is a corporation, separate and distinct from Piamonte
Bros. or Iloilo Enterprises, such that
the transactions made by appellant for and in behalf of these latter-named alleged
corporations should not be credited for or against Montel Discount Center is of no importance.  The trial court did not so find and the
record amply supports appellant’s statements that he dealt only with Manuel Piamonte, as the real original principal, who apparently
did business under these various business firm names, which appellant honestly
believed were “one and the same company.” The prosecution’s main
witness also corroborated this fact in testifying on direct examination as to when
appellant was employed as agent of the Montel Discount Cen­ter, that “when we first started he was
already employed because he was also the agent under my brother (Manuel Piamonte) when (Manuel) was the manager of the Iloilo
Enterprises.”^[5]

The conclusion reached by us as to the appellant’s innocence
makes it unnecessary to deal with the other assignment of error as to the
applicability of the provisions
of Articles 1912 to 1914 of the Civil Code invoked by appellant.

ACCORDINGLY, the
judgment appealed from is set aside; the trial Court’s conviction of Tomas Jumawan is hereby reversed and he is hereby acquitted of
the crime of estafa, with costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, and
Villamor, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., took no part.

^[1]
Note in parentheses supplied.

^[2]
See Gonzales vs. Serrano, L-25791, Sept. 23, 1968 (25 SCRA 64); People vs. Aquino, 52
Phil. 37; U.S. vs. Bleibel,
34 Phil. 231.

^[3]
T.S.N., February 24, 1967,
p. 15.

^[4]
Gonzales vs.
Serrano, fn. 2.

^[5]
T.S.N., February 24, 1967,
p. 4, emphasis supplied.