Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
CLARIN Peafiel
G.R. No. 5840, Sept. 17, 1910
Plaintiff: The United States
Defendant: Eusebio Clarin
Doctrine: The action of a partner who furnished the capital for the recovery of
his money is NOT a criminal action for estafa, but a civil one arising from the
partnership contract for a liquidation of the partnership and a levy on its
assets if there should be any.
Facts:
Pedro Larin delivered to Pedro Tarug P172.00 in order for Tarug,
Eusebio Clarin and Carlos de Guzman to buy and sell mangoes,
believing that he could make some money out of the business.
Larin made an agreement with the 3 men that the profits will be
divided equally among the 4 of them.
Tarug, Clarin, de Guzman traded in mangoes and obtained P203.00;
however, they did not comply with the terms of the contract that is,
to deliver to Larin his half of the profits. They also did not render him
any account of the capital.
This led Larin to charge them with the estafa, but the provincial fiscal
filed an information only against Clarin. Clarin was accused of
appropriating to himself not only P172.00 but also the share of profits
that belonged to Larin, amounting to P15.50.
The trial court charged Clarin with estafa and ordered him to return to Larin
P172.00 and P30.50 as Larins share to the profits. Clarin appealed. Hence,
this case.
Issue: WON Clarin is guilty of estafa -> NO.
Held:
The Court held that when two or more persons bind themselves to
contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the