You are on page 1of 2

DEGANOS v.

PEOPLE Subsequently, the Supreme Court sustained the decision of the


G.R. No. 162826 CA.
October 14, 2013 Evidence for Prosecution
Lydia Bordador is a jeweler. Deganos and Luz are brother
DOCTRINE: Novation is not a ground under the law to extinguish and sister, the latter being involved in selling religious
criminal liability. Article 89 (on total extinguishment) and Article 94 articles and books to the spouses.
(on partial extinguishrnent) of the Revised Penal Code list down the While in their house, Deganos saw her counting pieces of
various grounds for the extinguishment of criminal liability. Not jewelry and he asked her if he could show the said pieces of
being included in the list, novation is limited in its effect only to the jewelry to his sister Luz.
civil aspect of the liability, and, for that reason, is not an efficient Deganos returned the jewelry. Luz then asked Lydia
defense in estafa. This is because only the State may validly waive Bordador if she could trust Deganos with selling the said
the criminal action against an accused. The role of novation may jewelries.
only be either to prevent the rise of criminal liability, or to
Lydia Bordador agreed on the condition that if they could
cast doubt on the true nature of the original basic transaction,
not pay it in cash, they should pay it after one month or
whether or not it was such that the breach of the obligation would
return the unsold jewelry within the said period.
not give rise to penal responsibility, as when money loaned is made
She delivered the jewelry to Deganos evidenced by several
to appear as a deposit, or other similar disguise is resorted to.
documents entitled Katibayan at Kasunduan.
FACTS: Everytime Deganos got jewelry from her, he signed the
Brigada Luz alias Aida Luz and Narciso Deganos were charged receipts in her presence. However, they were only able to
with the crime of estafa by the Office of the Provincial pay up to a certain point (evidenced by the receipts from
Prosecutor of Cebu before the RTC for receiving gold and April to June 1987).
jewelry worth P438,702.00 from Spouses Jose and Lydia Despite oral and written demands, the accused failed and
Bordador. refused to pay and return the subject jewelry. As of October
Petitioners herein were under express obligation to sell on 1998, the total obligation of the accused amounted to
commission and remit the proceeds of these jewelries and P725,000.00.
return those which were not sold. Evidence for Defense
However, despite repeated demands by the Spouses Bordador, Luz alleged that she started transacting business of selling
petitioners allegedly misappropriated the said amounts for their gold bars and jewelry with the spouses Bordador sometime
own benefit. in 1986 through her brother, Deganos.
Antecedents: The gold bars and jewelry delivered to her by Deganos were
A separate civil action for the recovery of sum of money was usually accompanied by a pink receipt which she would sign
filed on June 25, 1990 by the spouses Jose and Lydia Bordador and after which she would make the payments in the form
against accused Brigida D. Luz alias Aida D. Luz and Narciso of postdated checks usually with a thirty-day period.
Deganos. After the checks are received, Deganos would be given a
The RTC of Bulacan rendered its decision ordering petitioner white receipt.
Deganos to pay the Spouses Bordador the sum of P725,463,98 Upon the encashment of checks from the drawee bank, the
as actual and consequential damages plus interest and white receipt would be stamped PAID by Lydia Bordador.
attorneys fees in the amount of P10,000.00. On the other On September 2, 1987, she sent a letter to Lydia Bordador
hand, Brigida Luz alias Aida Luz was ordered to pay the amount requesting for an accounting of her indebtedness. The latter
of P21,483.00, representing interest on her personal loan. made an accounting of P122,673.00 as principal and
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC. P21,483.00 as interest.
Thereafter, she paid the principal amount through checks. (2) Whether or not novation has converted the liability of
She did not pay the interest because the same was petitioners to civil liability (RELEVANT)
allegedly excessive.
A ledger was sent to her by Jose Bordador containing the HELD:
list of her indebtedness. She was asked to sign the same The Court held that novation did not transpire as to
but refused arguing that it was his brothers indebtedness. prevent the incipient criminal liability from arising.
Further, she asked the private complainants why they gave Further, novation is not one of the grounds prescribed
so many pieces of jewelry and gold bars to Deganos without by the Revised Penal Code for the extinguishment of
her permission, and told them that she has no participation criminal liability.
in the transactions covered by the subject "Kasunduan at In the case at bar, petitioner argues that novation took place
Katibayan" receipts. when the partial payments were accepted by the spouses
Deganos admitted to the said indebtedness and argued that Bordador, thereby converting the liability from criminal to
he already made partial payments in the amount of civil. However, the Court ruled that, the criminal liability
P53,307.00. already committed, is not affected by a subsequent novation
Ruling of the RTC of the contract.
The RTC rendered its decision finding petitioner Deganos Citing People v. Nery, the court held, The novation theory
guilty as charged but acquitted Luz for insufficiency of may perhaps apply prior to the filing of the criminal
evidence. information in court by the state prosecutors because
Ruling of the Court of Appeals up to that time the original trust relation may be converted
The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, modifying only the by the parties into an ordinary creditor-debtor situation,
penalty for the crime of estafa. Hence, this petition. thereby placing the complainant in estoppel to insist on the
original trust.
ISSUE/S:
(1) Whether or not the agreement between the parties was one of WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of
sale on credit Appeals promulgated on September 23, 2003; and ORDERS
petitioner to pay the costs of suit.

You might also like