THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN BENITEZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
Manila finding Benjamin Benitez guilty of the crime of estafa and
sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of from 2 months and 1 day
of arresto mayor to 1 year and 1 day of prision correccional,
with the accessories of the law, to indemnify the offended party in the
amount of P540.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency
not to exceed 1/3 of the principal penalty, and to pay the costs.

The facts are not disputed. The accused Benjamin Benitez was
employed by Jose Cua as collector of rents of the houses owned by the
latter. In the months of July and August, 1956, the accused made
several collections from his employer’s tenants amounting to P540.00.
Having failed to turn over said amount, or to account for it, to his
employer, upon demand, the accused offered to work in the former’s
establishment, the sum of P100.00, to be deducted from his salary every
month until the whole amount of P540.00 is fully paid. The offer and
the conditions for his employment were accepted by Jose Cua and reduced
to writing.

The accused, however, after working in Cua’s establishment for only
a few days, did not report or show up for work, whereupon Cua wrote to
him a letter demanding settlement of his account. The accused having
failed to pay the amount of his obligation, a complaint for estafa was
filed against him. He was convicted and sentenced as stated at the
beginning of this opinion. From that sentence, he appealed to the Court
of Appeals, contending that the lower court erred in finding him guilty
upon his mere failure to account for and turn over his collections,
there being ho proof of misappropriation or conversion, and in not
considering that his agreement with his employer converted his criminal
liability, if any, into a mere civil obligation. The questions raised
being purely legal, the case was certified to this Court.

After going over the record, we entertain no doubt that the accused has committed estafa.

In the case of Tubb vs. People and the Court of Appeals
(101 Phil., 114; 53 Off. Gaz. [18] 6096), this Court held that “the
failure to account upon demand, for funds or property held in trust is
circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.” In another case involving
a prosecution for the same crime as in the present, it was held that “*
* * it is the duty of the agent to return the jewelry iipon demand by
the owner and the failure to do so is evidence of the conversion of the
property by the agent. (People vs. Zamora, 2 Phil., 382.)” (People vs.
Limbo, CA, 51 Off. Gaz., 228.) In the case at bar, the accused admits
having collected the amount of P540.00 as rentals from the different
tenants of his employer. It is, likewise, admitted that he failed to
account for and turn over said amount to his employer, upon demand
therefor, without giving any reason or explanation whatsoever. These
circumstances, together with the fact that the accused even obligated
himself to make restitution, clearly show that the amount of P540.00,
which he was duty bound to deliver to his employer, was misappropriated
by him.

As to the contention that the liability of the accused is civil only
because of the written agreement between him and his employer, it is
well-settled that criminal liability for estafa is not affected by
compromise or novation of contract, for it is a public offense which
must be prosecuted and punished by the Government on its own motion
even though complete reparation should have been made of the damage
suffered by the offended party, (U. S. vs. Mendezona, 2 Phil., 353; U. S. vs. Ontengco, 4 Phil., 144; U. S. vs. Rodriguez, 9 Phil., 156; People vs. Leachon 56 Phil., 739; Javier vs.
People, 70 Phil., 550.) As was said in the case of People vs. Gervacio
(102 Phil., 687; 54 Off. Gaz. [9] 2898), “a criminal offense is
committed against the People and the offended party may not waive or
extinguish the criminal liability that the law imposes for the
commission of the offense.” The fact, therefore, that the accused
herein had, with the consent of the offended party, assumed the
obligation of paying the rentals, which he collected, out of his own
salary after he had committed the misappropriation, does not obliterate
the criminal liability already incurred.

There being no error in the judgment appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against the accused.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Barrera, JJ., concur.