Quinto vs People

[G.R. No. 126712. April 14, 1999] LEONIDA C. QUINTO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF TE PILIPPINE!, respondent. "ITUG, J.#

DOCTRINE# There is no substitution of debtors since private complainant merely acquiesced to the payment but did not give her consent to enter into a new contract. (See concepts of expromision and delegacion) NATURE# Appeal from decision of CA nding petitioner guilty of estafa FACT!# !.

-. &.

1.

,. '.

+. ;.

"etitioner #eonida $uinto received in trust seve ral pieces of %ewelry from Aurelia Cariaga with a total value of "&' . These are* ! set of marques with briliantitos valued at "!+ ,. ! solo ring (- arats / & points) valued at "!' .0 ! diamond ring (roseta s) valued at " -,.. The purpose is selling the same on a commission basis and with the express obligation to turn over the proceeds of sale thereof or to return the %ewelry within , days if not sold. The pro$%&'(io)# claimed that petitioner ased for more time to sell the items but failed to conclude any sale. After ' months Aurelia sent a demand letter for the return of the items which petitioner ignored. The *%+%)$%# #eonida was into the business of buy and sell in %ewelry. She used to buy from a 2rs. Antonia 3lagan who introduced the petitioner to Aurelia.  !4+,* Aurelia and #eonida started to transact business in pieces o5 %ewelry. The last transaction #eonida had6with 2rs. Camacho involved a 7marques7 worth "!'. and a ring valued at "1.. 2rs. Camacho was not able to pay the due amount in full and left a balance of "!&.. #eonida brought 2rs. Camacho to Aurelia who agreed to allow 2rs. Camacho to pay the balance in instalments. "ro5ered that petitioner had sold several pieces of %ewelry for Aurelia and it happened on some occasions that the buyers were unable to pay in full. 8hen this happened petitioner brought the buyers to mee t Aurelia who agreed to accept payment in installments. "etitioner claims that the contract between herself and Aurelia was e5ectively novated when the latter agreed to accept payment in installments directly from the buyers. 9TC in its -,th :anuary !44 & decision found #eonida guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa #eonida interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals which a
I!!UE!# 8>? there was novation of the contract when the latter consented to receive payment on installments directly from 2rs. Camacho and 2rs. 9amos.@ ELD# NO. !. ?ovation is nev er presumed and the animus novandi, whether totally or partially must appear by express agreement of the parties or by their acts that are too clea r and -.

unequivocal to be mistaen. There are - ways whic h could indicate the presence of novation and thereby produce the e5ect of extinguishing an obligation by another which substitutes the same. These are* a. 8hen novation has been explicitly stated and declared in unequivocal terms. b. 8hen the old and the new obligations are incompatible on every point. The test of incompatibility is whether or not the two obligations can stand together each one having its independent existence. 3f they cannot they are incompatible and the latter obligation novates the rst. Corollarily changes that breed incompatibility must be essential in nature and not merely accidental. The incompatibility must tae place in any of the essential elements of the obligation such as its ob%ect cause or principal conditions thereof0 otherwise the

change would be merely o*i-&(or/ in nature and insu
DI!PO!ITON# "etition dismissed. CA decision a