OCAMPO-PAULE V CA G.R.No.

145872 February 4, 2002 FACTS:

During the period August, 1991 to April, 1993, petitioner received from private complainant
Felicitas M. Calilung several pieces of jewelry with a total value of One hundred Sixty Three
Thousand One hundred Sixty Seven Pesos and Ninety Five Centavos (P163,167.95). The
agreement between private complainant and petitioner was that the latter would sell the same
and thereafter turn over and account for the proceeds of the sale, or otherwise return to private
complainant the unsold pieces of jewelry within two months from receipt thereof. Since private
complainant and petitioner are relatives, the former no longer required petitioner to issue a
receipt acknowledging her receipt of the jewelry.When petitioner failed to remit the proceeds of
the sale of the jewelry or to return the unsold pieces to private complainant, the latter sent
petitioner a demand letter. Notwithstanding receipt of the demand letter, petitioner failed to
turn over the proceeds of the sale or to return the unsold pieces of jewelry. Private complainant
was constrained to refer the matter to the barangay captain of Sta. Monica, Lubao, Pampanga.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was a novation of petitioner‘s criminal liability when she and

private complainant executed the Kasunduan sa Bayaran.

RULING:

It is well-settled that the following requisites must be present for novation to take place: (1) a
previous valid obligation; (2) agreement of all the parties to the new contract; (3)
extinguishment of the old contract; and (4) validity of the new one. Novation, in its broad
concept, may either be extinctive or modificatory. It is extinctive when an old obligation is
terminated by the creation of a new obligation that takes the place of the former; it is merely
modificatory when the old obligation subsists to the extent it remains compatible with the
amendatory agreement. The execution of the Kasunduan sa Bayaran does not constitute a
novation of the original agreement between petitioner and private complainant. Said Kasunduan
did not change the object or principal conditions of the contract between them. The change in
manner of payment of

petitioner‘s obligation did not render the Kasunduan incompatible with the original agreement,
and hence, did not extinguish petitioner‘s liability to remit the proceeds of the sale of the
jewelry

or to return the same to private complainant. An obligation to pay a sum of money is not
novated, in a new instrument wherein the old is ratified, by changing only the terms of payment
and adding other obligations not incompatible with the old one, or wherein the old contract is
merely supplemented by the new one. In any case, novation is not one of the grounds
prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the extinguishment of criminal liability.