CASE DIGEST: Yong Chan Kim v. People of the Philippines

 

YONG CHAN KIM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 84719                  January 25, 1991

FACTS:                         

Petitioner Yong Chan Kim was employed as a Researcher at the Aquaculture Department of the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC). As Head of the Economics Unit of the Research Division, he conducted prawn surveys which required him to travel to various selected provinces in the country where there are potentials for prawn culture.

On 15 June 1982, petitioner was issued Travel Order No. 2222 which covered his travels to different places in Luzon from 16 June to 21 July 1982. Under this travel order, he received P6,438.00 as cash advance to defray his travel expenses.

Within the same period, petitioner was issued another travel order, requiring him to travel from the Head Station at Tigbauan, Iloilo to Roxas City from 30 June to 4 July 1982. For this travel order, petitioner received a cash advance of P495.00.

On 14 January 1983, petitioner presented both travel orders for liquidation, submitting Travel Expense Reports to the Accounting Section. When the Travel Expense Reports were audited, it was discovered that there was an overlap of four (4) days (30 June to 3 July 1982) in the two (2) travel orders for which petitioner collected per diems twice. In sum, the total amount in the form of per diems and allowances charged and collected by petitioner under Travel Order No. 2222, when he did not actually and physically travel as represented by his liquidation papers, was P1,230.00.

Petitioner denied the alleged anomaly, claiming that he made make-up trips to compensate for the trips he failed to undertake under T.O. 2222 because he was recalled to the head office and given another assignment.

In September 1983, 2 complaints for Estafa were filed against the petitioner.

The MTC found Yong Chan Kim guilty beyond reasonable doubt. On July 30, 1987, the RTC affirmed in toto the trial court’s decision.

On 30 October 1987, petitioner filed with the appellate court a petition for review. The CA dismissed the petition for having been filed out of time. Likewise, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit.

Hence, the current petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner should be convicted of Estafa

RULING:

In order that a person can be convicted of Estafa under Art. 315, par. 1(b) of the RPC, it must be proven that he had the obligation to deliver or return the same money, goods or personal property that he had received.

The Court believed that the petition was under no obligation to return the same money which he had received.

Liquidation simply means the settling of an indebtedness. An employee, such as herein petitioner, who liquidates a cash advance is in fact paying back his debt in the form of a loan of money advanced to him by his employer, as per diems and allowances. Similarly, as stated in the assailed decision of the lower court, if the amount of the cash advance he received is less than the amount he spent for actual travel x x x he has the right to demand reimbursement from his employer the amount he spent coming from his personal funds. In other words, the money advanced by either party is actually a loan to the other. Hence, petitioner was under no legal obligation to return the same cash or money, i.e., the bills or coins, which he received from the private respondent.

Article 1933 and Article 1953 of the Civil Code define the nature of a simple loan.

“Art. 1933. By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to another, either something not consumable so that the latter may use the same for a certain time and return it, in which case the contract is called a commodatum; or money or other consumable thing, upon the condition that the same amount of the same kind and quality shall be paid, in which case the contract is simply called a loan or mutuum.

Commodatum is essentially gratuitous. Simple loan may be gratuitous or with a stipulation to pay interest.

In commodatum the bailor retains the ownership of the thing loaned, while in simple loan, ownership passes to the borrower.”

“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.”

The ruling of the trial judge that ownership of the cash advanced to the petitioner by private respondent was not transferred to the latter is erroneous. Ownership of the money was transferred to the petitioner.

Since ownership of the money (cash advance) was transferred to petitioner, no fiduciary relationship was created. Absent this fiduciary relationship between petitioner and private respondent, which is an essential element of the crime of estafa by misappropriation or conversion, petitioner could not have committed estafa.