31) United States vs. Clarin, G.R. No.

5840, September 17, 1910

FACTS:
Larin delivered to Tarug P172. The money will then be used with appellant Clarin and de Guzman for the
business of purchasing and selling of mangoes. Their agreement is that profits shall be divided equally
between Larin and the other three.
The trade of mangoes was successful obtaining gross profits of P203, making net profits of P31. Larin,
expecting that P172 and his share of P15.50 will be returned, was disappointed since neither was
delivered to him. As a result, he charged them with the crime of estafa but the fiscal filed an information
only against Clarin.
Trial Court found Clarin guilty of estafa.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Clarin is guilty of estafa.

HELD:
NO. Supreme Court held that their agreement formed a partnership since Larin “invested his capital in the
risks or benefits of the business of the purchase and sale of mangoes.” As such, even if Larin did reserved
the ownership of the capital to himself and conveyed only the use of it for the business, it is not the
obligation of the other three partners to return the capital to him but upon the partnership of which he
himself formed part of. Given that there is partnership, the partner who wants to recover his money from
the partnership shall file a civil action for liquidation of the partnership and not a criminal action for
estafa. In conclusion, Clarin was not guilty of estafa as the money received in a partnership is not subject
to misappropriation contemplated under the provisions on estafa.