Tan v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Mariano S. Macias saw an advertisement for Isuzu trucks and contacted Elbert Tan. Tan represented that he owned two Isuzu trucks at his warehouses. Macias went to Tan's warehouse in Pasay City, saw two trucks being assembled, and chose one. They agreed on a price of P92,000.00, with P17,000.00 as down payment, a trade-in of Macias' school bus valued at P65,000.00, and a P10,000.00 balance upon delivery. Procedural History: Macias paid the down payment and executed a deed of sale for his school bus. Subsequently, Macias' mechanic informed him that Tan was not the owner of the trucks. Macias verified this with a certain Johnny, who claimed ownership. Tan failed to deliver the truck despite Macias' readiness to pay the balance. During preliminary investigation, Tan paid P22,000.00 and a compromise agreement was executed, wherein Tan promised to return P45,000.00 instead of P65,000.00 for the school bus. The estafa charge was dropped, but Tan failed to comply with the compromise, leading to the filing of a new information for estafa. The Petition: Petitioner Elbert Tan was charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. After the prosecution rested, Tan filed a Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence. The trial court, in an Order dated July 29, 1988, did not give due course to the motion but warned that filing a demurrer would be a waiver of the right to present evidence. Tan subsequently filed a demurrer, which was denied by the trial court in an Order dated December 9, 1988. The trial court considered the case submitted for decision based on the prosecution's evidence, citing the waiver of the right to adduce evidence. Tan's motion for reconsideration was denied, and he was convicted by the trial court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Tan filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Elbert Tan lost his right to present evidence by filing a demurrer to evidence without express leave of court. Whether novation or a compromise agreement extinguishes criminal liability for estafa.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in toto. Petitioner Elbert Tan is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from three (3) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay complainant Mariano S. Macias the sum of P60,000.00 as reparation of the damage caused.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of waiver of the right to present evidence: The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner Elbert Tan lost his right to present evidence. The trial court, in its Order dated July 29, 1988, explicitly warned petitioner that filing a demurrer to evidence would be a waiver of his right to adduce evidence. At the time the trial court acted on the motion, Section 15 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court provided that a demurrer to evidence constituted a waiver of the right to present evidence, irrespective of whether leave of court was obtained. The subsequent amendment to Section 15 of Rule 119, which took effect on November 13, 1988, allowed an accused to adduce evidence on his behalf only when he obtained an express leave of court prior to the filing of his demurrer. Even if the trial court's order were interpreted as an implied leave, it would not suffice under the amended rules, which require express leave. Petitioner's motion did not contain a reservation to present evidence in case of denial, unlike in the Oñas case, making that precedent inapplicable. Therefore, petitioner's act of filing a demurrer after being warned constituted a waiver of his right to present his own evidence. On the issue of novation as a defense in estafa: The Supreme Court held that novation or a compromise agreement does not extinguish criminal liability for estafa. Novation is not a ground for the extinction of criminal liability under the Revised Penal Code. Criminal liability for estafa is a public offense that must be prosecuted and punished by the State, regardless of any compromise or reparation made by the accused. The Court reiterated the principle that a criminal offense is committed against the People, and the offended party cannot waive or extinguish the criminal liability imposed by law. The execution of a compromise agreement and partial payment of the defrauded amount only lessened, but did not extinguish, the civil liability of the accused. The elements of estafa were established: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or deceit, and (2) the offended party suffered damage or prejudice. The false representation by Tan that he owned the truck and the subsequent misappropriation of the down payment and school bus constituted estafa.
Main Doctrine
When an accused files a demurrer to evidence without express leave of court, he is deemed to have waived his right to present his own evidence. Novation or a compromise agreement does not extinguish criminal liability for estafa, as it is a public offense prosecuted by the State.