G.R. No. L-5183
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TAN TOK, defendant-appellant.
March 21, 1910

FACTS:
On March 26, 1908, Tan Tok ordered a bale of gray cloth for P260 on credit from Behn, Meyer & Co. Tan Tok had previously assured the company that the store at No. 144 Calle Rosario was exclusively his and that he had severed connections with Uy Chieng Can, who operated the store at No. 156. This assurance was crucial for him to be trusted with credit. The bale was delivered to the store at No. 144 on April 1 or 2, 1908. On April 4, 1908, the document evidencing the debt was signed, but later appeared signed with the stamp “Benito Uy Chieng Can, Rosario, 156.” Tan Tok claimed he had sold the store at No. 144 to Uy Chieng Can on March 29, 1908, meaning the bale was received in Uy Chieng Can’s store. Subsequently, the bale was included in an attachment by Findlay & Co. on Uy Chieng Can’s property and sold, causing Behn, Meyer & Co. to lose the price. A complaint for estafa was filed against Tan Tok.

ISSUE:
Did Tan Tok’s actions, particularly his alleged misrepresentation to obtain credit and subsequent failure to pay for the merchandise, constitute the crime of estafa?

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, holding that Tan Tok did not commit the crime of estafa. The Court ruled that in operations where one relies upon a person’s credit, there is no estafa. Even if a person secures credit due to an appearance of warranting it, and subsequently fails to pay, this does not constitute estafa. The transaction was essentially a sale on credit. The Court reserved to Behn, Meyer & Co. the right to bring a proper civil action for the recovery of the value of the merchandise against Tan Tok or whoever may be found indebted for its price.