[ G.R. No. 11165. August 15, 1916 ] 34 Phil. 750
[ G.R. No. 11165. August 15, 1916 ]
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL B. ASENSI, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J.:
This defendant was charged with the crime of estafa, committed with the falsification of a document. The complaint alleged:
“That on and many years before the 7th day of April, 1914, the said Manuel B. Asensi was and had been a trusted employee of the Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas, a foreign corporation domiciled in the city of Manila and duly authorized to engage in business in the Philippine Islands; that, as such employee of the above-named corporation, it was his duty to find out, at the end of every quarter, the total amount of the sales of the goods and merchandise made during such period by the said corporation, in order to declare and certify with his signature said amount before the Collector of Internal Revenue or his duly authorized agents, making said declaration and certification on the coupons attached with the patents, of which they form an integral part, issued annually by the Collector of Internal Revenue in favor of the said corporation; that said accused, as such employee of the above-named Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas, was also bound to pay, with the funds of the said corporation supplied him for said purpose, the Internal Revenue taxes which it had to pay on the amount of the sales above-referred to; that, as the accused well knew, during the first quarter of the year 1914, the sales of goods and merchandise made in Manila by the said corporation, amounted to the sum of P257,662.87, Philippine currency; that on the 6th day of April, 1914, the said accused asked of, and obtained from, the said corporation a check for the sum of P858.88, Philippine currency, payable to the order of the Collector of Internal Revenue, with which to pay the said Collector of Internal Revenue for the tax corresponding to the sales made during the first quarter of 1914, which tax amounted exactly to P858.88 at the rate of 1/8 of one per cent of the true amount of the sales referred to; that on the 7th day of April, 1914, the said accused went to the office of the Collector of Internal Revenue, in the city of Manila, and there presented coupon No. 1 which is an integral part of the patent to which it was attached, No. 2751, corresponding to the year 1914, issued by the Collector of Internal Revenue to the Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas, wherein, failing to declare the truth in the statement of the facts, at this same time and place, did, willingly, unlawfully, and criminally state, declare and certify falsely, with his signature, that the amount of the sales made by the Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas (of which the said accused was a trusted employee), during the first quarter of 1914, was P137,662.78; and that the Internal Revenue tax which the corporation should pay on the said amount at the rate of 1/8 of one per cent, was only P458.88; that the said accused, through the false statement made by him in the above-mentioned coupon No. 1 of patent No. 2751, induced and persuaded the Internal Revenue officers to believe the declarations, statement and certification made by him in the said instrument, and the said officers, acting under such belief, accepted, out of the sum of P858.88 stated in the check drawn to the order of the Collector of Internal Revenue by the Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas and which the accused delivered to them, only the sum of P458.88 as the tax due on the sales declared, stated and certified to by the accused himself, in the aforesaid form, time and place, at the rate of i of one per cent, over the said amount of the sales, returning, as they in fact did return, in cash, the difference between said amount and that stated in the check referred to, that is, the sum of P400, Philippine currency; and the said accused in the time and ‘place referred to, namely, on April 7, 1914, in the city of Manila, once he was in possession of the said sum of P400, Philippine currency, willingly, unlawfully, and criminally and with the intent to defraud the said Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas, did appropriate the same for himself, thus causing damages and injuries to the said corporation amounting to the said sum of P400, Philippine currency, equivalent to 2,000 pesetas.
“An act committed in violation of law.”
Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arrested, arraigned, tried, found guilty of the crime charged, and was sentenced by the Honorable Richard Campbell, judge, to be imprisoned for a period of ten years and one day of presidio mayor, to pay a fine of P2,500, to suffer the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and to pay the costs.
From that sentence the defendant appealed to this court and made several assignments of error.
From an examination of the record we find that the following facts are clearly proven, in fact, they are not seriously denied:
First. That the defendant had been an employee of the offended corporation for a long period prior to the 7th of April, 1914, and during said employment had been charged with the responsibility of taking care of various branches or departments or work of said corporation.
Second. That the offended corporation had been engaged for a long period of years in the city of Manila in the sale of merchandise of various classes, on a large scale, and was still so engaged during the year 1914.
Third. That the offended corporation being a merchant, engaged in the sale of merchandise, was obliged, for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of the Internal Revenue Law, to furnish a certified statement to the Collector of Internal Revenue, showing the amount of sales for each and every quarter of each year.
Fourth. That the defendant was charged with the duty, on behalf of the said corporation, of making out said certificate showing the amount of sales of said corporation for each and every quarter, and of obtaining a check therefor from the cashier of said corporation, for the purpose of paying the amount of taxes due upon said sales for a particular quarter.
Fifth. That in compliance with said duty and obligation as such employee of said offended corporation, the defendant did, on or about the 7th of April, 1914, prepare and sign the certificate required by the internal revenue department, in which he certified that the gross business of said offended corporation, subject to internal-revenue tax, ending March 31, 1914, was P137,662.87, and that the amount of money which was necessary to pay said merchant’s tax for said period was P458.88. (See Exhibit B.)
Sixth: That, notwithstanding said certificate showing the gross business subject to internal-revenue tax, done by said offended corporation, the defendant represented to the cashier of said offended corporation, on the back of Exhibit C, that the amount of gross business subject to internal revenue tax was the sum of P257,662.87, and that the amount of money necessary to pay said tax was the sum of P858.88. (See Exhibit C.)
Seventh. That upon the representation made by Exhibit C, the cashier of the offended corporation executed and delivered to the defendant a check, marked Exhibit D, for the sum of P858.88, made payable to the Collector of Internal Revenue, for the purpose of purchasing the stamps or paying the tax which was due, upon the representation made by the defendant in Exhibit C. (See Exhibit C.)
Eighth. That later the defendant, with said certificate Exhibit B, and said check, Exhibit D, went to the office of the Collector of Internal Revenue, and there purchased the number of stamps sufficient to pay the tax upon the gross amount of business, represented by said Exhibit B, by delivering to the Collector of Internal Revenue the check Exhibit D. The certificate (Exhibit B) showed that the amount of taxes due, for which stamps had to be purchased, amounted to P458.88. The Internal Revenue Collector delivered to the defendant stamps amounting to P458.88, and paid to him in cash the difference between said amount and the amount of said check, or the sum of P400.
Ninth. That the P400 received by the defendant, as indicated by the preceding paragraph, was received through the false representation made by the defendant to the cashier of the offended corporation and by virtue of his misrepresentation made to the cashier of said corporation. (Exhibit C.)
Tenth. That the certificate marked Exhibit B, made by the defendant, was false, in that it represented that the gross business of said offended corporation subject to internal-revenue tax for the period ending March 31, 1914, was P137,662.87, and that the defendant well knew that said amount did not represent the amount of the gross business done by said corporation.
Eleventh. That the defendant has neglected and refused to return to the offended corporation the said P400 and has willfully appropriated the same to his own use.
Twelfth. That by reason of the false representations made by the defendant, not only in the certificate marked Exhibit B, but in various others, covering a number of years, the offended corporation was obliged to pay to the Collector of Internal Revenue a great many thousand pesos to cover its unpaid taxes, as well as to pay a fine for its failure to comply strictly with the provisions of the law.
The appellant, under his first assignment of error, attempts to show, and cites many provisions of the different codes in force here in support of his argument, that there was no obligation resting upon the defendant to make the certificate Exhibit B, and he was therefore not liable, even admitting that he had falsified the same. The record shows that the defendant had been designated by the offended corporation as its representative, for the purpose of ascertaining the gross amount of business done by it, and upon which it was required by law to pay taxes for each quarter. The corporation itself, not being able to act for itself, was under the necessity of having an agent or representative to act for it. The defendant accepted the responsibility imposed upon him by the offended corporation. He voluntarily assumed the obligation to perform the duty imposed upon him, and actually undertook to perform said duty, and had, for a number of years, made out the required certificate for and on behalf of the corporation. We do not believe that it is within his mouth now to say that he had not been appointed to perform that particular duty in accordance with the provisions of law. The courts will not now hear him say that he was performing the duty thus voluntarily assumed, without authority of law. Taking into consideration the relation of the offended corporation to the defendant, and the particular duty which the defendant voluntarily assumed, we are of the opinion that the sentence of the lower court should not be modified by reason of the error alleged in the first assignments
In the second assignment the appellant argues that, inasmuch as the proof fails to show that the offended corporation had demanded a return of the said P400, and it not appearing that the defendant had refused to return the same, he was not guilty of the crime of estafa. The record shows that the defendant obtained possession of the said P400 by means of fraud and false representations. When money or property is received by means of fraud or false representations, a demand for the return of the same is not necessary in order to constitute the crime of estafa. Any person who, to the prejudice of another, shall convert or misappropriate money, goods, or other personal property, received by such person for safe keeping, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other circumstances, giving rise to the obligation to make delivery of or to return the same, etc., shall be guilty of the crime of estafa and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5 of article 535, in its relation with article 534 of the Penal Code. Considering the fraud practised by the defendant upon the offended corporation and the fact that he obtained the money in question by means of false representations, we are of the opinion and so hold, that a demand for the return of the same and a refusal by him so to do is not a necessary prerequisite as an element of the crime charged against the defendant. We find nothing in the second assignment of error sufficient to justify a modification of the sentence of the lower court.
With reference to the third assignment of error, the appellant contends that the document falsified (Exhibit B) is not a public document. The Penal Code contains no definition of what constitutes a public document. This Court held in the case of Cacnio vs. Baens (5 Phil. Rep., 742) that any instrument authorized by a notary public or a competent public official, with the solemnities required by law, was a public document. We have also held that the blank forms prepared by the Auditor of the Philippine Islands, in accordance with Act No. 90 of the Philippine Commission, are public documents. (U. S. vs. Carrington, 5 Phil. Rep., 725.) We have also held that a receipt issued by the department of assessments and collections of the city of Manila, for taxes collected, is a public document, and one who falsifies the same is guilty of the falsification of a public document (U. S. vs. Leyson, 6 Phil. Rep., 447.)
In the case of United States vs. Mateo (5 Phil. Rep., 462) we held that a burial permit issued by the Board of Public Health of the city of Manila is a public document, within the meaning of that term as used in article 301 of the Penal Code.
In the case of United States vs. Vy Guico (12 Phil. Rep., 209) we held that the official receipt prescribed by the Government to be issued upon the receipt of money for public purposes is a public document, as that term is used in articles 300 and 301 of the Penal Code.
In the case of United States vs. Weems (7 Phil. Rep., 241) we held that an official cashbook kept by the disbursing officer of the Coast Guard and Transportation Department, was a public or an official document, in the sense in which those words are used in article 300 of the Penal Code.
In the case of United States vs. Barrios (10 Phil. Rep., 366) we held that the cashbook of a public official, in which entries are made of accounts of public moneys received, is also public document, as that term is used in article 300 of the Penal Code.
In the case of United States vs. Vy Guico (supra), an official receipt was held to be a public document, for the reason that it was invested with the character of an official document by reason of the fact that it was printed in accordance with the standard forms required by the Government
In the present case the document in question (Exhibit 8) was printed in accordance with Schedule C and furnished to merchants, in accordance with the provisions of the law of 1904. This form was evidently prescribed by the internal revenue department of the Government. When presented to the internal revenue department of the Government, it became a part of the records of that office and in our judgment is fully invested with the character of an official or public document, as those terms are used in articles 300 and 301 of the Penal Code.
From all of the foregoing facts, we are of the opinion that the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause shows that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged in the complaint, and should be sentenced in accordance with the provisions of article 301 of the Penal Code, in its relation with article 89 of the same code. The sentence of the lower court being fully sustained by the evidence and the law, we are of the opinion and so hold that the same should be and is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.
Torres, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur. Moreland, J., see dissenting opinion