GR 153460; (January, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153460; January 29, 2007
Tony Tan a.k.a. Tony Y. Ching, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Tony Tan and his wife Rosalina sold a BMW vehicle to Profetiza Cabrera, wife of private complainant Roberto Cabrera, Jr. Registration was hindered due to a discrepancy in the certificate of registration and the issuance of Executive Order No. 90-93, which required tax clearances for imported vehicles. The Bureau of Internal Revenue demanded payment of a compromise tax from Rosalina. Upon learning of this, the Cabreras offered to share the tax burden. Roberto Cabrera, Jr. issued a check for P150,000 payable to cash, which was delivered to and received by petitioner’s representative, with the obligation to pay the tax to facilitate the car’s registration.
Despite encashing the check, petitioner failed to pay the tax, preventing the vehicle’s registration. The Cabreras filed a civil case for rescission of contract and a criminal complaint for estafa. The civil case was eventually dismissed, with the court finding a third-party importer liable for the tax, not the petitioner. Meanwhile, the criminal case proceeded.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Tony Tan is guilty of the crime of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed petitioner’s conviction for estafa. The dismissal of the civil case did not extinguish his criminal liability, as the two actions are separate and distinct. For estafa under Article 315(1)(b), the elements are: (1) receipt of money, goods, or other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration; (2) misappropriation or conversion of such property by the offender, or denial of receipt thereof; (3) such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) there is a demand made by the offended party.
All elements were proven. Petitioner received the P150,000 in trust, with the specific obligation to pay the BIR. His encashment and failure to apply the funds to the intended tax payment constituted misappropriation. This caused pecuniary damage to the Cabreras, who made repeated demands for the return of the money. His intent to defraud was evident from his failure to account for the funds despite demands. The criminal liability for abuse of confidence exists independently of the resolution of civil contractual obligations.