THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ROSENDO VILLAREAL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila
convicting the accused of the crime of estafa and sentencing him to four months,
and one day of presidio correctional, to payment of costs of the
action, and to indemnify the firm of Successors of C.Fressel & Co. in the
sum of P1,036.11, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

It is charged in the information in this case: “That on or about the 31st day
of January, 1913, in the city of Manila, P. I., the said Rosendo Villareal,
having prior to that date as an agent of the firm of Successors of C. Fressel
& Co., a copartnership duly organized and doing business in the city of
Manila, P. I., received several amounts for the purchase of native hats, from
which amounts on the date above stated, there was a balance in his possession of
P1,036.11, which the said Rosendo Villareal had received on deposit, commission
or administration from the said firm, Successors of C. Fressel & Co., to
wit, for the purpose of buying native hats for the said firm of Successors of C.
Fressel & Co., the said defendant did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously misappropriate, misapply and convert to his own use the said sum
of P1,036.11, to the damage and prejudice of the said firm of Successors of C.
Fressel & Co. in the said sum of P1,036.11, Philippine currency, equivalent
to 5,180 and 11/20 pesetas.”

We are of the opinion that there is not sufficient evidence to sustain the
conviction. It appears from the testimony introduced on the trial that the firm
of Successors of C. Fressel & Co. was engaged in the purchase and export of
native hats of various styles and qualities. Thus engaged it procured the
services of the accused in this case to purchase hats of the individual makers
found engaged in that business within a certain area and to sell them to the
company. It was the custom among the hat makers at that time to have advanced to
them by their purchasers money sufficient to pay for materials and help. The
defendant having no money to make these advances and to pay for the hats which
he had engaged to purchase, certain sums were at various times advanced to him
by C. Fressel & Co. In return for the advances the accused at various times
sold and delivered to the company quantities of hats at an agreed price. In the
course of time and just prior to the commencement of this prosecution a
liquidation of accounts resulted in disclosing the fact that the accused was in
debt to Fressel & Co.for money advanced in the sum of P1,036.11.

It appears from the testimony of Brokman, the manager of Fressel & Co.,
as well as from the testimony of the accused, that the money advanced to the
accused by Fressel & Co. was in the nature of a loan and not a delivery of
money to be used for a particular purpose or to be returned. Brokman testified
that they purchased hats from the defendant at the price which they could agree
upon; that an account was kept of the debits and credits of the accused in which
he was charged with the sums of money advanced and credited with varying
quantities of hats which he delivered to them; that the sum of P1,036.11 which
appears as the balance in favor of the company did not represent any particular
or designated sum of money advanced to the accused’ but was obtained by
subtracting from the total of the sums advanced the total purchase price of the
hats delivered. The accused testified that the money which he had from the
plaintiffs was received as a loan which was charged to his account and which he
promised to repay in hats which he proposed to sell and deliver to them. He
admitted that he owed the sum above mentioned but denied that he had used any
money obtained from the company for his own purposes as alleged, declaring that
the sum represented the losses which he had sustained in the business occasioned
by two causes; First, the neglect or refusal of certain hat makers to whom the
accused had advanced considerable sums of money to deliver to him the hats for
the purchase price of which said sums had been delivered; and, second, the
company at various times during their commercial relations refused to pay the
accused the price which he asked for the hats and compelled him to sell them to
it at a considerable loss. This evidence is uncontradicted, and being
corroborated, as it is, by other evidence in the case, we are constrained to
find that the accused has not violated any criminal law and should be
acquitted.

The judgment of conviction is reversed and the accused acquitted.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Carson, and Araullo, JJ.,
concur.