View full case

TONY TAN v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

In this case, petitioner Tony Tan was found guilty of estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) by the Court of Appeals (CA). The case stemmed from the sale of a 1988 BMW 525i motor vehicle by petitioner and his wife Rosalina to Profetiza P. Cabrera, the wife of private complainant Roberto C. Cabrera Jr. The sale price was P3 million, but the deed of sale did not reflect this amount.

Profetiza received the car and its accompanying documents on September 19, 1992, but registration in her name could not be done because the certificate of registration (CR) was in the name of Rosita Tan, not Rosalina Tan as indicated in the deed of sale. Profetiza returned the CR and the deed of sale to Rosalina for correction. Rosalina then executed a new deed of sale reflecting the purchase price of P3 million.

However, an executive order was issued requiring importers of taxable motor vehicles, including the BMW, to obtain clearances from the Bureau of Customs (BOC) and Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) before the CRs could be renewed by the Land Transportation Office. The BIR Commissioner informed Rosalina that the car's CR could only be issued upon payment of P325,000 as tax compromise. However, Rosalina had already sold the car to Profetiza and failed to pay the required amount.

The private complainant, Roberto, offered to share the tax burden and issued a check for P150,000 to petitioner. Despite receiving the check, the car still could not be registered under Profetiza's name and it was discovered that the tax was never paid. The spouses Cabrera filed a complaint for rescission of contract and collection of money against petitioner on August 29, 1994. Roberto also initiated a criminal action against petitioner for estafa on April 25, 1995.

The complaint in the civil case was dismissed after it was found that the importer, not petitioner, was liable for the additional duties or taxes. In the criminal case, petitioner was found guilty of estafa and sentenced to imprisonment. The trial court's decision was affirmed by the CA with some modifications to the penalty and the order for petitioner to pay P150,000 with interest to the private complainant.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied both by the trial court and the CA. Hence, the present petition was filed before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the prosecution failed to prove the elements of estafa.

  2. Whether the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are entitled to great weight and should not be disturbed.

  3. Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of estafa for misappropriating the amount entrusted to him.

  4. Whether or not a demand is necessary to prove misappropriation in estafa cases.

RULING:

  1. The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are present in this case. The petitioner received money in trust, failed to fulfill his obligation to return or pay it, and his actions caused prejudice to another. The existence of a written agreement expressly enjoining him to remit the money is not necessary for the commission of estafa. The distinction between the conversion of a check and the conversion of cash is also not material in estafa.

  2. The factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are entitled to great weight and respect. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited to reviewing errors of law. The petitioner failed to show that the lower courts overlooked any relevant facts or that their findings were glaringly erroneous.

  3. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the petitioner is guilty of estafa. The petitioner unlawfully withheld the money entrusted to him for a specific purpose and never offered a valid reason for not remitting it or returning it to the complainant. The ruling in the civil case declaring that the importer was not liable for the taxes did not justify the petitioner's misappropriation of the entrusted amount.

  4. In this case, the court found that demand had been duly made on the petitioner. A complaint had been filed against him, and he was served summons and a copy of the complaint. The judicial demand was considered as effective as, if not more effective than, the letters of demand previously made by the complainant. Demand need not be formal and the specific word "demand" need not be used; even a mere inquiry about the whereabouts of the money can be considered as demand.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Estafa is committed by any person who defrauds another by means specified in the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

  • The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are: (a) receipt of money or property in trust, on commission, or for administration; (b) misappropriation or conversion of such money or property; (c) prejudice to another; and (d) demand made by the offended party to the offender.

  • The duty to make delivery or return of personal property includes civil obligations arising from agreements between the parties.

  • The conversion or misappropriation of another's property includes not just using it for personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the property without any right.

  • The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and will only review errors of law. Factual findings of lower courts are entitled to great weight and respect, unless there is a clear showing of error or grave abuse of discretion.

  • Misappropriation or conversion of money entrusted to a person is an essential element of the crime of estafa.

  • Failure to account upon demand is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.

  • Damage as an element of estafa can be temporary prejudice or disturbance in property rights.

  • Demand is not required by law to prove misappropriation, but it may be necessary to establish the fact of misappropriation. Demand need not be formal and the specific word "demand" need not be used; even a mere inquiry about the whereabouts of the money can be considered as demand.