[ G.R. No. 11841. March 31, 1917 ] 36 Phil. 682
[ G.R. No. 11841. March 31, 1917 ]
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MARIANO LIM, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
It is our opinion that the record demonstrates over-whelmingly the existence of a relation of trust and confidence between Pablo Monserrat and Mariano Lim, the defendant, such as is charged in the information, by virtue of which the latter was under an obligation to act for and on behalf of the former, to disclose the facts truthfully, to act fairly and justly, and to account faithfully. That relation was established upon Lim’s own initiative. It was induced by false representations and pretense; it was continued by active deceit and by a failure to disclose truthfully the facts; and it was terminated without an accounting to Monserrat by reason of the continued misrepresentation, deceit, and failure truthfully to state the facts on the part of Lim.
We base this conclusion upon the oral and documentary evidence in the case and especially upon Exhibits 1, 2, 4-a, 4-b, 4-c, 4-d, 5, 7, and 9.
It is true, as counsel argue that Monserrat, the complaining witness and the person alleged to have been defrauded, made at times certain statements as a witness which, if taken literally and without regard to the context, might militate against the existence of the relation which we have held the evidence establishes. It should be noted, however, that Monserrat, almost in the same breath, stated facts and detailed circumstances which showed what the relation really was. The statements referred to are largely conclusions of law which Monserrat drew concerning the nature of the relation between him and Lim in response to questions put to him which required, in part at least, legal conclusions as answers.
Moreover, the actual relation between Monserrat and Lim in the transaction in question is not determined by the name which Monserrat puts upon it or which he might put upon it. One ignorant of law might readily declare that a certain state of facts created one relation when, as a matter of law, it created quite a different relation. While Monserrat may not have been able to give the legal name of the relation which was established between him and Lim he, nevertheless, contended, and now contends, that that relation was of such a character that Lim had no right to induce him, by fraud and deceit, to accept P2,492 for land for which Lim, by virtue of almost the same act, received P4,461.50.
We have read with great care and interest the printed argument of counsel for the appellant; and we listened with the same care and interest to their oral argument. In spite of these arguments, however, we do not believe that it can be legitimately drawn from the record that the defendant Lim was a purchaser of the land in question from Monserrat in his own name and that, in the negotiations between him and Monserrat, he occupied the position of one who purchased from Monserrat in his own name and on his own behalf to resell to the railroad company. Substantially none of the evidence in the case, either oral or documentary, except that of Lim himself, supports this theory. The evidence requires, on the contrary, a conclusion altogether different. Even the testimony of Lim himself, if taken as true, fails in material respects of fully and fairly explaining the case which the testimony and exhibits of the prosecution establish against him.
We do not believe that the court erred in excluding Exhibits N-l to N-48, as they were offered in evidence by counsel for the defendant We think they were properly excluded on the ground that they were immaterial and irrelevant. To give them even an appearance of bearing it would have been necessary to show that Monserrat knew of the transactions which those exhibits embody, and was familiar with the custom which it is claimed they establish. Moreover, the fact that the defendant did with others what he did with Monserrat is slight, if any evidence, of the correctness of the contention that his conduct with Monserrat was fair and legal.
We have carefully considered the argument of counsel based on that fact that Lim paid Monserrat the purchase price of the land out of his own funds by means of his personal check. It is true, as counsel contend, that this fact might, under proper circumstances, corroborate the claim of Lim that he purchased the land from Monserrat and took title thereto in his own name. It should not be overlooked, however, that it also supports the contention of the prosecution based upon the charge that Lim, throughout the transaction, deceived and misled Monserrat; and that one of the most artful conceptions in the scheme of deception was that very payment, as it rided Lim of the danger which would have followed an attempt of Monserrat alone, or of Monserrat and Lim together, to collect that sum from the railroad company. It may be admitted as true that, where a given fact may be construed either for or against the accused, he is entitled to have it construed in his favor. That rule, however, if it is a rule, is subject to the exception that a fact which is susceptible of being fitted into one or the other of two theories, should be fitted into that theory in which it will produce its natural and logical effect.
We have examined with care all of the assignments of error presented to us by counsel for the appellant. We do not consider it necessary to deal with each one in detail. All have been met with the statements which we have already made. Most of them are based upon the construction or interpretation which counsel believe we should give to the testimony and the exhibits. The trial court and this court believe that the application we have made of the testimony, both oral and documentary, is not only the natural and ordinary but the necessary application. However much the words and sentences of the evidence may be strained and twisted, the striking fact remains that Monserrat received P2,492 for a document transferring lands, for which very same document Lim, by a turn of his hand, received P4,461.50. There is no explanation in the record which even approaches sufficiency which discloses why Monserrat should deliver to Lim for P2,492 a document for which he could have received P4,461.50 if he had delivered it to the Railroad Company in whose favor it was already drawn and to which, to all intents and purposes, it already belonged.
Finally, we find little difficulty with the contention that the defendant was exempt from prosecution by virtue of the immunity conferred by section 28 of Act No. 2307. Even admitting, for the sake of the argument made by counsel for the appellant, that the defendant comes within the provisions of that Act, which is seriously doubted by the prosecution, we are of the opinion that he may waive the privilege; and we have no question whatever of the fact that he did waive it on the trial of this case.
The facts as we find them and as the lower court found them bring the case clearly within article 535 of the Penal Code.
The penalty imposed being within the provisions of law pertaining thereto, the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed thereunder are hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Carson, Moreland, Trent, and Araullo, JJ.