G.R. No. 139849 ; December 5, 2001
JOHN MANGIO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner John Mangio was a former business partner of spouses Reynaldo and Aurea Dillena. The Dillenas obtained a P50,000 loan from Agnes Salvador, with Mangio as guarantor. When they failed to pay, Mangio informed them that Salvador demanded their Toyota jeep as payment for the increased loan amount of P64,000. Reynaldo Dillena signed an agreement titled “Dapat Malaman ng Lahat,” which stated the jeep would be held by Salvador as security, and surrendered the vehicle to Mangio. Mangio signed the document as a witness attesting to his receipt of the jeep.
Subsequently, Mangio sold the jeep to a third party for P20,000 without the Dillenas’ authority. The Dillenas discovered the sale when Salvador sued Aurea for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 concerning the unpaid loan’s check. Salvador denied receiving the jeep or the sale proceeds. The Dillenas demanded the jeep’s return or its value from Mangio to no avail, leading to the filing of an estafa case under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Mangio’s conviction for the crime of estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) are present: (1) Mangio received the jeep in trust for delivery to Salvador; (2) the Dillenas were induced to part with the jeep based on this trust; (3) Mangio misappropriated or converted the jeep by selling it without authorization; and (4) the Dillenas suffered damage. The agreement clearly established a fiduciary relationship, as Mangio received the jeep with the specific obligation to deliver it to Salvador. His act of selling the vehicle constituted a clear conversion for his own benefit, breaching that trust. His defense that he sold the jeep to pay the Dillenas’ loan interest was unsubstantiated and belied by Salvador’s denial of receiving any payment.
The penalty was modified regarding damages. The trial court valued the jeep at P40,000, but the only evidence of value was the P30,000 purchase price testified to by the buyer. Thus, actual damages were reduced to P30,000. The penalty imposed under the Indeterminate Sentence Law—two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional as minimum to eight years of prision mayor as maximum—was upheld, as the amount defrauded exceeded P22,000, warranting the maximum period of the prescribed penalty.