Case 38-ALL

TOPIC: ESTAFA

UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ISAAC DOMINGUEZ, defendant-appellant.

G.R. No. L-17021, February 23, 1921

VILLAMOR, J.: Time Log

Facts: 15 mins
Issue: 1 min
Held: 12 mins
Facts:

Isaac Dominguez (defendant-appellant), salesman at Philippine Education CO., received the sum
of seven pesos and fifty centavos (₱7.50) or thirty-seven and one-half pesetas (37 ½) due to sales
from the store of the said company. This amount would then be turned over to the company’s
cashier or his authorized representative, instead of the delivering the said amount to the cashier
which he knew that it was his obligation to do so, the accused criminally misappropriate and
convert it to his personal used.

The accused defense was that he did not deliver the money immediately after the sale, because the
cash boys were very busy as well as the cashier, while he had to go to the toilet for some necessity,
and upon coming out, the cashier caught him by the arm and asked him for the money, and then
he delivered the sum of ₱7.50 to him; and that it was not his intention to make use of said money.

Trial Court found the accused guilty of consummated offense of estafa.

Issue: WON the defendant was guilty of frustrated offense of estafa

Held: Yes, defendant was guilty of frustrated offense of estafa. Under Article 6, first paragraph of
the Revised Penal Code:

“A FELONY is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present; and it is FRUSTRATED when the offender performs all the
acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator”

Defendant performing all the acts of execution which should produce the crime as a consequence.
But as the cashier caught him and asked for the money, which he then delivered, is independent of
the will of the perpetrator causing no appreciable damage to the offended party.

Supreme Court appealed the decision of Trial Court and charged the appellant guilty of frustrated
offense of estafa.