149.

Lu Hayco vs CA

Haycu was a former employee of Units optical with 124 complaints of estafa files against him by the
company with the office of city fiscal of manila. after the procedural PI, fiscal filed 75 cases of estafa
against Haycu, except as to the dates and amounts of conversions, the 75 informations commonly
charge that Haycu having collected and received customers of the company the purchase of goods has
converted the sum of money he collected to his own personal account with a bank.

A civil action for accounting was filed also by the owner of the company against Haycu complaining that
Haycu initiated discharging the business functions and prerogatives of the company thru deceit and
machinations that the owner affixing his signatures to the power of attorney to open account in the
bank.

Contention of the accused:

-the 75 criminal cases is not only oppressing but also out of the jurisdiction of the city fiscal of manila.
asserting also that the 75 were mere components of only one crime.

- that there is no estafa since the element of misappropriation or conversion was not proven

Resolution:

The disturbance in property rights caused by misappropriation, though only temporary, is itself sufficient
to constitute injury within the meaning of Art. 315(l -b) of the RPC. In U.S. v. Goyenechea (8 Phil. 117),
the defendant pledged a typewriter belonging to McCullough & Co. to the American Loan Company.
Because of said act, the typewriter was seized by the police, and taken into court. Throughout the trial,
McCullough & Co. was placed in a doubtful position as to its right over the typewriter. [The SC] held
that: “McCullough & Co. at least suffered disturbance in its property rights in the said typewriter and in
the possession thereof. This fact, by itself, and without it being necessary to deal with any other
considerations of material fact herein, always constitutes real and actual damage, and is positive enough
under rule of law to produce one of the elements constituting the offense, the crime of estafa.”

In the case at bar, there was a disturbance in the property rights of Lu Chiong Sun. While the funds
received by Lu Hayco were deposited in his personal bank accounts, Lu Chiong Sun and Units Optical
could not dispose of the said amounts. At least, this could be considered as a temporary prejudice
suffered by Lu Chiong Sun, which is sufficient to constitute conversion in the context of Art. 315 (1-b) of
the RPC.