G.R. No. 110715 - ELBERT TAN, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, accused Elbert Tan is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal in the crime of estafa as charged in the aforequoted Information; and in line with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance shown to have attended the commission of the crime, he is 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. With costs de oficio. Also assailed in this petition is Respondent Courts [4] Resolution [5] promulgated on June 18, 1993 which denied petitioners motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. The Facts Respondent Court reproduced the facts as found by the trial court, as follows: [6] The evidence shows that, sometime in December 1986, complainant [M]ariano S. Macias read an advertisement in a newspaper offering for sale certain four-wheeler Isuzu trucks. Calling up the advertised telephone number, he was able to talk with accused Elbert Tan, and thereafter, pursuant to their appointment, the complainant went to the place of the accused in Grace Park, presumably in Caloocan City. Told by Tan that the Isuzu trucks for sale were at the two warehouses of the accused, one in Quezon City and the other in Taft Avenue, Pasay City, the complainant decided to see the trucks at the Pasay City warehouse of accused Tan. The complainant and the accused then went to the said warehouse where there were two (2) four-wheeler Isuzu trucks being assembled. Accused Tan represented to the complainant that he owned the trucks and that he was selling them. Macias chose one of the four-wheeler trucks being assembled as the unit he liked. The complainant and the accused then agreed that the complainant would buy the said vehicle at the price of P92,000.00 with P17,000.00 as down payment and the complainants school bus, valued at P65,000.00 to be traded in, and the balance of P10,000.00 to be paid to the accused upon the delivery of the truck to the complainant. On December 15, 1986, complainant Macias paid to accused Tan the amount of P17,000.00 as down payment, and executed a deed of absolute sale transferring to Tan the complainants school bus at the price of P65,000.00 to be applied as part of the purchase price of the four wheeler Isuzu truck which the complainant bought from the accused. Subsequently, the mechanic of Macias who was supervising the assembling of the truck purchased by him told the complainant that he suspected that accused Tan was not the owner of the vehicle. Going to the shop where the truck was being assembled to make a verification, the complainant saw a china man named Johnny, supervising the entire shop. Johnny informed the complainant that the trucks in the shop were owned by him and