Facts:

Rosalinda Amin charged petitioners Yam Chee Kiong and Yam Yap Kieng with estafa for misappropriation of the amount of P50k but the complaint stated on its face that the petitioners received the amount as a loan and an independent action for collection of sum of money was also filed. Tan Chu Kao also charged petitioners with estafa for the misappropriation of the amount of P30k. Likewise, the complaint stated on its face that petitioners received the amount as a loan and an independent action for collection of sum of money was also filed. Augusto Sajor also filed for estafa against the petitioners for misappropriation of the amount of P20k but he didn’t file an independent action for collection of sum of money but in a sworn statement he stated that the amount was received by the petitioners as a loan. Thus, respondent judge Hon. Nabdar Malik issued warrant of arrests for Yam Chee Kiong and Yam Yap Kieng.

Issue:

WON, the criminal complaints constitute estafa.

Held:

No. In order that a person be convicted of estafa it must be proven that he has the obligation to return the same money, goods or personal property that he received and he misappropriated it. Petitioners had no such obligation since they received the amount as a loan. The nature of simple loan is defined in Article 1953 of the Civil Code – A person who receives a loan of money or any fungible thing acquires the ownership thereof, and is bound to pay the creditor an equal amount of the same kind and quality. Since, ownership is passed to the debtor there can be no misappropriation. The court is in the opinion that a debtor cannot be held liable for estafa by merely refusing to pay or denying his indebtedness.