G.R. No. 139849 - JOHN MANGIO, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused JUANITO MANGIO, [14] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa as defined and penalized under Art. 315, par. (b) of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 2 years 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum to 8 years of prision mayor as maximum and to pay the private complainant the sum of P40,000.00, the value of the goods misappropriated." [15] He appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court's decision in toto on March 31, 1999. He filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on August 29, 1999. Hence, this petition for review with the following assignment of errors: "I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING THE LAW WHEN IT TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION TESTIMONIES OF AGNES SALVADOR GIVEN IN ANOTHER CASE, WHERE PETITIONER WAS NOT AFFORDED THE CHANCE TO CROSS-EXAMINE HER. II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE PENALTY WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW." Petitioner faults the decision of the appellate court for having appreciated Exhibit "G" which is page 31 of the transcript of stenographic notes of Agnes Salvador's testimony in another case, Crim Case. No. 413-M-94 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 78 for violation of B. P. Blg. 22. Salvador filed said case against Aurea Dillena in relation to the check the latter issued for her P50,000.00 loan from Salvador in 1990. Exhibit "G" shows that Salvador testified that she did not receive the P20,000.00 proceeds of the sale of the Dillenas' owner-type jeep. According to petitioner, the appellate court erred in admitting said testimony as he did not have the opportunity to cross-examine Salvador who was not presented in the trial of the instant case, and thus claims that he was denied due process. Petitioner asserts that Salvador's testimony did not satisfy the requisites for admissibility under Sec. 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, viz : "Sec. 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding.- The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him." Without said testimony of Salvador, petitioner contends that respondent's cause is left without a leg to stand on as there is no other evidence to support respondent's allegation that Salvador did not receive the Dillena spouses' owner-type jeep or the proceeds of its sale. The Solicitor General, on the other hand, argues that it is too late in the day for petitioner to raise denial of due process in relation to Rule 130, Sec. 47 as grounds for objecting to the admissibility of Exhibit "G". In petitioner's Comment on the Prosecution's Offer of Documentary Exhibits dated February 14, 1996, petitioner objected to Exhibit "G" only for