TITLE: CHEE KIONG YAM, vs.
MALIK estafa through misappropriation when the
obligation is that of simple loan?
RULING:
TOPIC
Yes. The court held that the debtor cannot be
held liable for the crime of estafa, under said
ACTION : Petition for certiorari, Prohibition article, by merely refusing to pay or by denying
and Mandamus for preliminary injunction the indebtedness.
In order that a person can be convicted under
the abovequoted provision, it must be proven
FACTS: that he has the obligation to deliver or return the
*Rosalinda M. Amin same money, goods or personal property that he
received. Petitioners had no such obligation to
|| charges petitioners with estafa through return the same money, i.e., the bills or coins,
misappropriation. which they received from private respondents.
This is so because as clearly stated in criminal
* But the complaint states on its face that said
complaints, the related civil complaints and the
petitioners received the amount from respondent
supporting sworn statements, the sums of money
Rosalinda M. Amin "as a loan."
that petitioners received were loans.
|| Judge Malik then conducted preliminary
*Further in simple loan or mutuum the
investigation and issue warrants against the
borrower acquires ownership of the money
petitioners
goods or personal property borrowed. Being the
HENCE owner, the borrower can dispose of the thing
borrowed (Article 248, Civil Code) and his act
The petition, prohibition and mandamus with will not be considered misappropriation thereof.
preliminary investigation
ALLEGING that
*Municipal Judge Nabdar J. Malik of Jolo,
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
|| acted without jurisdiction,
to be commodatum wherein the borrower
|| in excess of jurisdiction does not acquire ownership over the thing
|| and with grave abuse of discretion borrowed and has the duty to return the same
thing to the lender.
* because the facts recited in the complaints did
not constitute the crime of estafa *In commodatum the bailee may be held liable
for the crime of Estafa
|| and assuming they did constitute the
crime of estafa, they were not within the Art. 315. Swindling (Estafa). — Any person
jurisdiction of the respondent judge. who shall defraud another by any of the means
mentioned herein below shall be punished by:
xxx xxx xxx
ISSUE:
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence
Whether or not the respondent judge erred in namely:
holding the petitioners liable for the crime of
xxx xxx xxx
b) By misappropriating or converting, to the
prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other
personal property received by the offender in
trust or on commission, or for administration, or
under any other obligation involving the duty to
make delivery of or to return the same, even
though such obligation be totally or partially
guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having
received such money, goods, or other property.
Art. 1953. — A person who receives a loan of
money or any other fungible thing acquires the
ownership thereof, and is bound to pay to the
creditor an equal amount of the same kind and
quality.
