Professional Documents
Culture Documents
~.
:~ f
'
1 (,'
l0
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
'
ilTOCORPUZ
,,
'
Petitioner,
q f\1
-versus-
POSTED l'H l,
9 IJJ;'DyI/
}KO 0} (o.
G.R. No.
(C.A.-G.R. CR No. 28983)
011 INAL
4NO _
_,..~-COP1Ef
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------x
SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI
t;'",:
C,.J
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Olongapo City for Manila; Novemrrr 9, 2007.
NJNJ
'[f.._ CRUZ
II'\
'.I
,, ::
"',. :,~I',,
j ' u ' 11
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
'',',,
.JLITO CORPUZ
i
,..,,.'
Petitioner,
POSTED
-versus-
011
NCi
C1, '1tb~
INAL
igwf(p
G.R. No.
(C.A.-G.R. CR No. 28983)
ANl---i-+-i---COAEt
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------------x.
~"'
.;
I.
,.
i.'
~1
;,.':
'},!
In this Petition, petition respectfully seeks relief from this Honorable Court
;(; under Rule 125 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure in relation to Rule 45 of the
~\. Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner respectfully appeals .from the Decision
.'\ promulgated on ..March 22, 2007 and Resolution of denial of the Motion for
:1i'.:.Reconsideration promulgated on - September 5, 2007, both issued by the
Honorable Court of Appeals rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
it . .
Within the reglamentary period for the filing of this Petition, petitioner paid
the docket and other lawful fees, thru Postal Money Orders Nos. 0320067341,
0310074041, 0350098520 and 0350098521, which were attached to petitioner's
"Notice of Appeal etc." filed on October 9, 2007.
The ~eciion of the Honorable Court of Appeals of March 22, ~67 was
received by titioner's then counsel Atty. Teddy Macapagal on :April 3, 2007.
On April 1 , 2007, petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration.
2~007,
On -September
petitioner received the Resolution of .the
Honorable Court of Appeals promulgated on September 5, 2007 which denied
petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
tr
... ""
~-
f'
{I
,;
.I
L,
...
]'J
- '-./
On October 9, 2007, petitioner filed with this Honorable Court his "Notice
of Appeal thru Petition for Review on Certiorari under Section 2 of Rule 125 of
:ithe Rules of Criminal Procedure in Relation to Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil
i'Procedure (with Motion fro Extension of Time to File Petition for Review)"
.; II.
The Honorable Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated March 22, 2007,
convicted petitioner for ~stafa, under the following dispositive portion:
'I
.
The original duplicate copy of the Decision is attached herewith as Annex "A".
The Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner was likewise denied by
the Honorable Court of Appeals in a Resolution promulgated on September 5,
2007, as follows:
"We have gone over the a/legations of the accusedappellant in his Motion for Reconsideration and found no
substantial argument to warrant a modification or reversal
ofOur Decision dated March 22. 2007.
Accordingly, the Motion for reconsideration is DENIED
for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. "
;,
!
il11
'1~
, I,
The original duplicate copy of the Resolution is attached herewith as Annex "B".
~1
;.
I'
I
ij
':J'
III.
1.
On 21 October 1991, the City Prosecutor's Office of Olongapo City
filed an Information for Estafa against herein petitioner punishable under Par.
1(b), Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The case was raffled to Branch 7 5 of
the Honorable Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City, being then presided
by the Honorable Judge Leopoldo T. Calderon, Jr. and docketed as Criminal Case
No. 665-91; that the Information, Annex "C" hereof, reads:
2
~,
I .
r
...
.. "I I uI' 1
-.J
f
"That on or about thefifih (5 1h) day of July 1991, in
thtb C;tyo IO fOllt?-HlJW~ .Ph;/;pp;,.11<, tMwl ff';;H;H ffltb
11
jH,,.;~;IOt;roH
2.
On 28 January 1992, Judge Calderon, Jr. arraigned petitioneraccused who pled not guilty to the offense charged in the Information;
3.
No pre-trial was conducted as the Honorable Judge Calderon simply
waived the right of petitioner-accused to the same, pursuant to the Order dated 24
September 1992;
4.
The prosecution presented the private complainant Danilo Tangcoy
as its only witness in the case; that thereupon, the prosecution filed its Formal.
Offer of Evidence consisting of Exhibits A and series, Annex "D" hereof, and
rested its case;
6.
7.
Criminal Case No. 665-91 was submitted for decision on the basis of
the respective testimonies of the private complainant and petitioner-accused. No
other witness on either side took the witness stand to corroborate the lone
witness' testimony;
i
" ,;
!111
'(,
'.
].
'
''
8.
The case was then endorsed to Branch 46, Honorable Regional Trial
ourt . of San Fernando,. Pampanga, presided by the Honorable Lamberto A.
, aing, Jr., for decision in view of the serious ailment and eventual demise of the
onorable Judge Calderon while this case was submitted for decision;
.;
9.
On 14 September 2004, the lower Court (referring Branch 46, RTC,
.;'San Fernando, Pampanga) promulgated its Judgment dated 30 July 2004, and
lpetitioner-accused, through counsel. obtained a copy of the Judgment, Annex
'.'"''E" hereof, on the same day. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads as-
follows:
"WHEREFORE, finding the accused UTO CORPUZ
G(/ILTY beyond reasonable doubt ofthe felony ofEsta/a under
Art.315, paragraph one (1), sub-paragraph (b) of the Revised
Penal Code; there be no offsetting generic aggravating nor
ordinary mitigating circumstancels to vary the penalty imposable;
accordingly, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty
deprivation of liberty consisting of an imprisonment under the
Indeterminate Sentence Law ofFOUR (4) YEARS AND TWO (2)
MONTHS of Prison Correctional in its medium period AS
MINIMUM of Reclusion Temporal on its minimum period AS
MAXIMUM; to indemnify private complainant Danilo Tangcoy the
amount ofPhp98, 000. 00 as actual damages and to pay the cost of
suit."
10. Without doubt, the Honorable Judge Daing relied on the testimony
.of the lone witness for the prosecution and a single witness for the defense as
revealed through the cold pages of the transcript of stenographic notes since be
was not the presiding judge when these two (2) opposing witnesses took the
witness stand. In truth and in fact, he did not see their respective demeanors in the
witness stand;
,1 . ..1.:
Ilt
1
-~
r1~.'
t
i
V.
ARGUMENTS
1
'
1.
The Honorable Court of Appeals erred confirming the admission ans
't t?appreciation by the lower Court of fatally inadmissible evidence for the
,.1 \'Prosecution's Exhibits A and series, which were mere machine copies, in
:!\violation of the Best Evidence Rule under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised
} .Rules on Evidence which requires the production of original documents; that the
,;;.prosecution was not able to prove that it could invoke the exceptions. stated in the
1 .
s Rule, as in fact, the prosecution failed to show any of the circumstances that
' would justify presentation of evidence which were mere machine copies.
!
In the case of Heirs of Severa P. Gregorio vs. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA
[1998], this Honorable Court emphasized the application of the Best
Evidence Rule -
''Ii
,I,'',.''
,1
<
,:
:
'
" .r
/('.
In Gobonseng vs. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 472 [1995], this Honorable
Court ruled:
"q.
a.
q.
a.
q.
a.
ul
).i
)''
2.
The criminal Information for Estafa, Annex "C", filed against
petitioner was fatally defective in that (i)
It did not specify the period within which petitioneraccused was duty-bound to return or make delivery of the goods received
(ii) It did not specify the period in which the items would have to
be returned, if unsold, or the money will be remitted, if the items were sold~ that
. without such period, criminal liability would not have attached to the person
charged with the offense
Petitioner respectfully argues that it is only if the period is breached, either
by not remitting the money if the jewelries are sold, or by not returning the
jewelries if they are not sold, would criminal liability accrue or begin to attach.
Without any period specified, one will never know of there was breach of the
obligation to remit the proceeds or return the jewelry;
. Since the Information did not fix or specify any period within which the
. duty to remit the money, ifthe jewelries were sold, or to return the jewelries, if
not sold, then the Information was fatally defective. The absence of the period in
the Information meant that the criminal liability of petitioner could not have
attached to him, the same way that an obligation whose fulfillment a day certain
has been fixed cannot become demandable if that day certain has not arrived, the
same obligation is impossible to be fulfilled if no day certain has been specified:
1 7
(iii)
...
:,
'1
:,:
The Information alleged that the date of the incident was 05 July 1991; that
1~,the fact remains that the date was materially inconsistent with the testimony of the
:~(private complainant wherein he indicated a different date from 05 July 1991,
'!'instead, alleged 02 May 1991. The inconsistency is very material. The transcript
{of stenographic notes reveals:
J:.
/,
'
'
\.
,'
'
.yf',
"q.
,;.:.'
.,
b.
q.
b.
Where at?
At the Casino at Magsaysay Drive, sir.
q.
b.
q:
a:
,'
. ,,
'' .~ 1'
. r, ,
q.
a.
t., ;
'''
q.
a.
q.
a.
About Php98, 000. 00, sir: (Highlighting Supplied) (TSN of 17
December 1992, pp. 5-6)
Petitioner respectfully strongly contends that 05 July 1991- the date of the
commission of the crime alleged in the Information- is radically different and
materially inconsistent with 02 May 1991, the latter date being the occasion of the
commission of the crime testified to by the private complainant. It is clear that the
date alleged in the Information was not established even as another date was
8
18
l..
.'
1.9
3.
The elements of the Crime of Estafa by Misappropriation were not
':established and proved by the prosecution
In Manahan vs. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 202[1996], this Honorable
. i . Court enumerated the elements of estafa through misappropriation penalizes
,1 under Art. 315 (1 )(b) of the Revised Penal Code. as follows:
'i
:
q.
q.
q.
a.
For whom?
Lito Corpuz, sir.
q.
a.
1
,I
'
q:
a:
q.
a.
'"
'J
....... '[,,,'"'n
q.
a.
a.
q.
a.
q.
a.
q.
q.
: ~
'
'1
i.\
a.
q.
a.
Up to this time that you were here, were you able to collect
from him partially or full?
No, sir." (TSN of 17December1992, pp. 9-10)
ATTY COLLADO:
q.
You also testified that after 05 July 1991, the alleged deadline
in the receipt, you have not seen Mr. Corpuz?
a.
Yes, sir.
q.
a.
q.
a.
It would be correct to assume you have not seen him for one
month after 5 July 1991?
Yes, sir.
And it could be more than two months when you again able to
locate Lito Corpuz after July?
Almost two months, sir. (TSN of 17 December 1992, p. 14)
lo
1 .' f
Hence, the issue of demand was truly iincertain. This uncertain demand does not
! satisfy the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Given that demand is
;an important element of the offense of Estafa under Art. 315 (l)(b), then it must
ibe established with moral certainty. As it is, the conscience cannot rest easy if this
. wa.s the kind of testimony we got from the private complainant;
4.
certainty
The guilt of petitioner was not established with the requisite moral
In People vs. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 59 [1971] and People vs. Bania, 134
SCRA 347 [1985], this Honorable Court stressed:
In Darvin vs. Court of Appeals, 292 SCRA 534 [1998], this Honorable
Court explained the requisite proof beyond reasonable doubt upon which a
conviction may be based:
The private complainant had two (2) versions of the incident on May
11
. I 1 L.
2.,
"
I. ,
'
'
'"i . '
"
/\
,, 1-'''
q.
a.
\'
q.
a.
q.
a.
q.
a.
q.
.ff
a.
q.
a.
q.
a.
q.
a.
~ ;!iJ 1r II
'
li
. :).
2
:...
.L
q.
a.
And yet, during his direct testimony on rebuttal, he admitted that aside
from the jewelries he allegedly gave to the accused-appellant, he simultaneously
extended a loan of Phpl0,000.00 to him. The transcript of stenographic notes of
Jananury 11, 1994, Annex "tr' hereof, indicates:
I ;
a.
q.
a.
a.
q.
a.
q.
a.
q.
a.
)(
, . rt
q.
I:
1.
13
,,,
! : ('
: : I!
l1
..... It
{(
6.
t~C
; ,:;
Petitioner testified that he was an agent of Antonio Balajadia, and he
1~recruited people working inside the US Naval Base then who would borrow from
c ~iAntonio Balajadia, for which he got a commission of 4% of the ineterest for every
. ::loan taken through his efforts, while the 6 % went to Antonio Balajadia. The loan
.. Pvaried from Php3,000.00 to Php5,000.00. Petitioner vehemently denied any
' ".:~{transaction with the private complainant, who, like him,. was just an agent.
. J1;\Significantly, petitioner admitted that in these money transactions with Antonio
.: ~{Balajadia, he would sign blank receipts. The transcript reveals:
I\
.. ~
~~} ',,
~i>
q.
a.
q.
a.
~:(i
"
q.
a.
l~f
q.
You said awhile ago you are an agent, will you please
explain the Court the nature ofthat agency?
Mr. Balajadia loans out money to Base employees and
we are the ones collecting the indebtedness of the interest,
sir.
j,i.:~'.,:
,I,'~'
:~\l,:,
'[:~.; '
'!
;t,:
~L
~(.
r.
y, .. ,
1"'1
,<'
~~~
"i,J\'
'l::,
)~::
~
~.:'{
.ir:-,,; :,
a.
r~;:;,,
,1.;
q.
a.
COURT:
q.
a.
A11Y. COLLADO:
q.
a.
q.
a.
/i
1
1,:
14
II ,.
._ I
q.
a.
q.
a.
\'I
,:
r
'
~,
Will you tell the Court if at the time you signed this receipt,
. th e same.?
1t. 1s
There are no entries, sir.
And why did you signed a blank receipt?
He would not lend me without signing this receipt paper,
sir.
q.
q.
a.
q.
a.
a.
q.
a.
7.
In People vs. Benemerito, 264 SCRA 677 [1996], this Honorable Court
followed the formulation of the Equipoise Rule:
15
I l { I
. . . . . . : /
i..
'!..I
f-'
,
the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does
not fulfill the test ofmoral certainty, and is not sufficient to
support a conviction. "
Assuming without admitting that the respective versions of the private
'complainant and petitioner regarding the alleged incidents are evenly balanced,
/then the equipoise rule in criminal cases should apply. The application of this rule
;will also result in judgment of a acquittal. Petitioner respectfully pleads the
;: argument that he is entitled to an acquittal based on the equipoise principle in
criminal cases.
8.
::
I
I
"The reason for the rule that penal statutes are construed strictly against the
State and liberally in favor of the accused is that tlie law is tender in favor of the
rights of an individual; the object is to establish a certain rule by conformity to
which mankind would be safe and the discretion of the court limited. The purpose
of strict construction is not to enable a guilty person to escape punishment
through a technically but to provide a precise definition of forbidden acts."
(Ruben Agpalo, "Statutory Construction/' 2003 ed.; p. 2890)
9.
Petitioner finally invokes the strict construction of penal statutes in
his favor, being the one charged in this case. This is especially true if the version
of the prosecution has been marked by gaps, loopholes and material
inconsistencies. Petitioner is also invoking the principle in statutory construction
given the evasions of the private complainant which are in sharp contrast to
petitioner's straightforward and logical narration which is consistent with human
expenence.
''
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered; petitioner most respectfully prays of
this Honorable Court to reverse and ser aside the Decision of the Honorable Court
of Appeals dated March 22, 2007, and the Resolution of the same Honorable
Court dated September 5, 2007, and thereby finally acquitting petitioner of the
crime charged in the Information ..
Petitioner further prays for such ot11er just and equitable reliefs.
Olongapo City for Manila November 5 200~
'
NINI D.
UZ
16
I
I
''
P-~--t
... ...::11'l
. .i.. .i
'l
?7
-
REGISTRY RECEIPT
I.
aae ~ inquiry
17
:I
r.; I
...
.
.
l,
'J }.
-(.,
(i<f
. P
VERIFICATION
& CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM-SHOPPING
I, LITO CORPUZ, of legal age, married, Filipino and a resident of
1473 El Ranchito Village, Tabacuhan, Olongapo City, under oath, state
and depose:
That I am the petitioner in this case; that I voluntarily caused
preparation of the Petition for Review; that I have read and understood
contents thereof; and that all the allegations are true and correct of
own knowledge and belief.
the
the
my
\
\
I
i
. I
!)_th
Book No._
Series of 2007
Nata 4ublic
,, 0
I
E'
en Ai~\
MANSOHI~
;=:~iSL 1::;
!JN T L GFCr-.:~"~P.~t;. ~::
,.,.r ( 1
f \I
'-:1l;1
f REPUBLIC OF THE
If CITY
OF OLONGAPO
::i
PHILIPPINES )
)
1)
.1..1!J
s. s .
1,
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, Nini D. Cruz, being the counsel for petitioner
in this case, do hereby declare under oath that I have
caused the service of copies of the PETITION FOR
REVIEW ON CERTIORARI dated November 5. 2007, to:
1. the Honorable Court of Appeals
1. the Honorable Solicitor-General
2. the Hon. RTC-City of San Fernando, Pampanga
Branch 46
by registered mail at the Olongapo City Postal Office
on November 9, 2007 under Registry Receipts Nos. 9905,
9907 and 9906, respectively.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my signature this November 9, 2007 in
Olongapo City.
NINI
GD
CRUZ
/
//
Notary P / ic
Doc. No . JJL.
Page No. _$.
Book No. XlA
Series of 2007.
~EGUN
(.INTI
,...,.c
Ll
E MANGOHl9
,;,ueuc
r
orr:iryPF'~ i ~(!0 1\11"'.'l u:15!J.8.:J:
.1 ,t.\ ~1"
j
:1
: t
'{
,I
'
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
FIFTH DIVISION
CA-G.R. CR No. 28983
THE
OF
PEOPLE
THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Members:
COSICO, R., Chairman,
BERSAMIN, L., and
PERLAS-BERNABE, E., JJ.:
- versus -
PROMULGATED:
LITO CORPUZ,
Accused-Appellant.
MAR 2 2 2007
f f,I//."()()(>-..
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, E., J.:
Before Us is an appeal filed by accused-appellant Lita Corpuz
fro1n the Judg1nent 1 dated July 30, 2004 rendered by the Regional
Trial Court of San Fernando City (P), Branch 46, in Criminal Case No.
665-91, the decretal portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, finding accused UTO CORPUZ GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of Estafa under Article 3]5,
paragraph one (1), subparagraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code;
there beinrr
no offsettinrr
creneric C\lTcrravatin(T
nor ordinaru)
b
.
b b
bb
b
mitigating circumstancc/s to vary the penalty imposable;
accordingly, the i::KCused is hereby sentenced tl1 suffer the
penalty of deprivation of liberty consisting of an imprisonment
under the Indeterminate Sentenn" Lavv of FOUR (4) YEARS AND
TWO (2) MONTHS of Prision Correccional in its medium period
1
;.
11
CA-G.R. CR No.18983
Decision
2
f;
f I
L . l I
I \
x-----------------------------x
1 ,
3 r;
""
',',
Ibid.
'
'
. . . "'
: I
I ' '' .
consisting of the sale of the subject jewelries; and that he prepared the
receipt therefor using the office fon11 of JBL, Inc., the business owned
and operated by his brother-in-law, Antonio Balajadia. 8
Consequently, accused-appellant wus indicted of the cnme of
estafa under an Inforrnation 9 which states:
"That on or about the fifth (5 1h) day of July, '1991, in the City
of Olongapo, Philippines, and \Vithin the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-nan1ed accused, after ht:lving received
from one Danilo Tangcoy, one (1) men's diamond ring, 18k, vvorth
P45,000.00;
one (1) three-baht men's bracelet, 22k, worth
P25,000.00; one(l) two-baht men's neckLxe, 22k, worth P16,00U.OO;
and one (1) two-baht ladies' bracelet, 22k, worth P'l 2,000.00, or in
the total amount of Ninetv Eight Thouszmd Pesos (P98,000.00),
Philippine currency, under the express obligation on the part of
said accused to remit the proceeds of the sale of the said items or to
return the same, if not sold, said accused, once in possession of the
said items, with intent to defr;:iud, and with unfaithfulness and
abuse of confidence, and far from complying with his aforcstated
obligation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
misappropriate, misapply and convert to his mNn personzd use <lnd
benefit the aforesaid jewelries or the proceeds of the sale thereof,
and despite repedled derna11ds, tltc <l(CllSt:d (<-tiled cli1d refused to
return the said items or to remit the amount of Ninet}' Eight
Thousand Pesos (P98,000.00), Philippine currency, to the damage
and prejudice of said Dt:lnilo Tangcoy in the aforementioned
an1ount.
f .,.;(
'
.. H~
CONTRARY TO LAW."
(.
,,
d
,I
')
/!
I
, lo
CA-G.R. CR No.18983
Decision
x-----------------------------x
Ibid., p. 4.
Ibid., p. 11.
14 TSN, July 8, 1993, pp. 4-5.
is TSN, July 8, 1993, p. 5.
12
t3
1'
.....
l.
\.
3 ~j
'
if.'~
',.,
x-----------------------------x
Supren1e Court enunciated in the case of Caraan vs. Court of
Appeals2 2 that:
"Furthermore, no objection was raised by counsel for
petitioners m their written opposition/ comment to private
respondents' offer of evidence regarding the fact that V\rhat was
marked and submitted to the court was the photocopy. In Blas vs.
Angeles-Hutalla, the Court held thus:
'The established doctri1w is thal \vhen a p<irly faill'd Lo
interpose a timely objection to evidence at the ti1ne they were
offered in evidence, such objection shall be consilfored as waived.
In Tison v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court set out the
applicable principle in the follmving terms:
[F]or while the documentary evidence submitted by petitioners
do not strictly conform to the rules on their admissibility, \Ve are,
however, of the considered opinion that the same may be admitted
by reason of private respondent's failure to interpose any timely
objection thereto at the time they were being offered in evidence. lt
is elementary that an objection shall be made at the time when an
alleged inadn1issible document is offered in evidence, otherwise,
the objection shall be treated as waived, since the right to object is
merely a privilege which the party may waive.
.. -
For the san1e reason, the Court cannot sustain accusedappellant' s allegation that the Infonnation against him is fonnally
defective. As held in the case of People vs. Magbanua23: "(0) bjections
as lo the inatters of forn1 or substance in the information cannot be
111ade for the first tin1e on appeal." Neither can the Court uphold
accused-appellant's clain1 that the Information against him is fatally
22
2:i
I;
"
,.
'
' !
I.
7
u
37
x-----------------------------x
defective since it did not specify a) the period within which he should
deliver the proceeds of the sale and/ or return the subject jewelries;
and b) the 111aterial date of the con11nission of the offense. 24 "An
infonnation is legally viable as long as it distinctly states the statutory
designation of the offense and the acts or 0111issions constitutive
thereof."25 Then Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides
that a con1plaint or inforn1ation is sufficient if it states "the nan1e of
the accused; the designation of the offense by the statute; the act~ or
01nissions co1nplained of as constituting the offense; the name of the
offended party; the approxin1ate tin1e of the con1rnission of the
offense, and the place wherein the offense was con1111itted." In the
case at bar, a reading of the subject Inforn1ation shows con1pliance
with the foregoing rule. That the tin1e of the c01nn1ission of the
offense was stated as "on or about the fifth (5 1h) day of July, 1991"26 is
not likewise fatal to the prosecution's cause considering that Section
11 of the san1e Rule requires a state111ent of the precise tin1e only
when the san1e is a "n1aterial ingredient of the offense". The
gravan1en of the crin1e of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is the appropriation or conve.rsion of
1noney or property received to the prejudice of the offender.27 Thus,
aside r01n the fact that the date of the con1mission thereof is not an
essential elernent of the crin1e herein charged, the failure of the
prosecution to specify the exact date does not render the Infon11ation
ipso facto defective. 28 Moreover, the said date is also near the due
date w~thin which accused-appellant should have delivered the
proceeds or returned the said jewelries as testified upon by Tangkoy,
hence, there was sufficient cornpliance with the rules29. Accusedappellant, therefore, cannot now be allowed to clain1 that he was not
properly apprised of the charges proffered against hin1.
On the 111erits, the elen1ents of estafa through 111isappropriation
or with abuse of confidence are as follows: "1. that inoney, goods, or
other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on
2
25
People vs. Eleuterio Dimapilis, C.R. Nos. 128619-21, December 17, 1998 citing Sta. Rita vs. vs.
Court of Appeals, 247 SCRA 484.
26 Records, p. 1.
27
Leonida Quinto vs. People, C.R. No. 126712, April J..J., ] 999.
28
People vs. Edgardo Mauro, C.R. Nos. 140786-88, March 14, 200~.
29
Ibid.
~ I
,.,I
I
x-----------------------------x
con1n1ission, or for adn1inistration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to n1ake delivery of, or to return, the same; 2. that
there was misappropriation or conversion of such money or
property by the offender or a denial on his part of such receipt; 3.
that such n1isappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice
of another; and 4. that there is a demand made by the offended party
on the offender."30
In the instant case, the prosecution vv as able to establish the
presence of the foregoing elen1ents. Records show that accusedappellant received the subject jewelries in trust or on comn1ission
basis fron1 the private c01nplainant as evidenced by the receipt dated
May 2, 1991 with an obligation to sell or return the same within 60
days, if unsold, thereby creating a fiduciary relationship between
them. I-Ie 111isappropriated the same when he failed to remit the
proceeds thereof and/ or to return them within or after the agreed
period despite demand and even denied receipt thereof. Such failure
on his part was to the prejudice of private con1plainant.
Corollary thereto, the Court cannot sustain accused-appellant's
avennent that no den1and was n1ade upon him to return or deliver
the iten1s received as the exact date thereof cannot be inferred frorn
Tangkoy's testiniony. 31 Private con1plainant testified that he was able
to locate and talk to accused-appellant about the iten1s subject of the
receipt after aln1ost two (2) n1onths or after July 5, ] 9913 2 and the
latter pro1nised to pay for the saine33_ Considering that (D)e111and
need not be forn1al. It 111ay be verbal. x x x even a query as to the
whereabouts of the money is tantan1ount to El demandfl'1-J, the Court
rules that a den1and was actually n1ade in this Glse, contrary to
accused-appellant's clain1. Besides, (D)ernand is not an element of
the felony or a condition precedent to the filing of a criminal
con1plaint for estafa. Indeed, the accused may be convicted of the
felony under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code if
the prosecution proved misappropriation or conversion by the
fl
fl
111
Filadams Pharma, Inc. vs. Court of Appeills, C.R. No. 132..J.22, march :10, 200"L
Rollo, pp. 56-6"1.
1 2 TSN, December -i?, 1992, pp.9-10 and 14
1
' TSN, December 19, 1992, 11. 10.
'+Lee vs. People, infra.
11
3n
x-----------------------------x
L.1
../
RobertCrisanto D. Lee vs. People, C.R. No. 15778!, April 11, 2005.
People vs. Dulay, 423 SCRA 652 .
7
.1 People vs. Sevillano, 425 SCRA 247.
38
Rollo, pp. 63-70.
19
People vs. Pabalan, GR. Nos. 115350, 117819-21, September 30, 19%.
Jr,
..
~--~
(V
CA-G.R. CR No. L.8983
. ~".' (\\
Decision
x-----------------------------x
,lio
'' '
)~ 0
OftIGINAL SIGN~D
ESTELA. M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
f I
I,
'I
WE CONCUR:
RODRIGO V. COSICO
Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
,,,,
...
, .., ;
Mar1i\~1
1-\, l"f.~\ II '\''I 'j''.1
:11
'11
'\ " 11
i :) ; '
n {'l 1', P1 1',0ri11\ 1', 0\1 1' Tl \! 1', Pl !11,lP1 li"l1 ',~),
.\ 1 I ~.d 11 i. i I'f /\ t1l i c I l c( :,
IV\l:111lJ1:1:::
,I ( ) '<..,I
)
'I (
I1\) ')
')
,I ( ''
'I '
,,'/i./l/'/}'!r.111
1',
1', ,
\ 1',
"
!,/
IJ.\'{) c:(!\\l~U'/,,
/\ccu.';l:d ./\ppcl Ian!.
SEP 0 5 Z007
1\,
.JI
w(:
I,'
Ii: l v c
i I i c; :1 I: i ()I\
:u1d
\::
l)
)), J '!J) (
l/
\\\Cl'li..
'11,,
1 I
ORIGINAL SJGN-.:;,;n
\ \!\. 'I,)
\I 1 1/\'1
11'1 I 1.l \! i \I
1./':\ l.Y' '1
,;') '1)11, I \I
\ 1'11 11
11,
1 1 '\.
, ,11,.
'\ 1
! ' \ ' ..
W\1', (l(li"i('.\J\\:
'I\ '.''I}
I
'(
'
OHJGINAI, SfGNr~:n
")
'
)
,
j
'
i I \.,I
~ , I ' ' . \ ' ' ' I I i'. ' . . '\
,'H{H1\,,J(J,
,' .\J,'Jl.\U,,
/.
'
'
11 ' (
I I,'
.~.<..I)
I )
'
'I :,
'11' ('
(
. I
I I 'I ) , I
1I1
,
l\;I 1 I\,I'
I \, :1 / '
I'' I ,
\,)
('' '
/
L3
.:t
1~;epuLd.i~:
uf
UH.~
Pl1ilipJlll11_::';
R4:~gif';ua.1
Tirial Clf:>u.irt
Tl 1ird ,.Jud.i.cird l:!e:gioi i
1n:~AfiCH 46
City cir San Fernnudo (F~)
J~I'I'O
CORPUZ,
Ac c t1 s ed.
x - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- --
-x
JUDGMEN1'
------ --
---
~--
-~-
----~
B. GONZALES
Fourth Assistant City Prosecutor
TAN: 5194-672-15"
(pp. 1 &
2~
Rollo).
,,,
the
,/
'
Page .. 3 _,..
t.> IJ
..
i11
r1.'.d11ec1
!(iJ'
1n1-:Pll/
IT\.'
"'<<1111in<1ii.>11,
Mr. l-Ld.'l
~di.dt:d
"
; 1..
Iii!!
!lw
l1.tii1 1.1111;;
iu1d
:xnn1ined,
! l'I'() (~()!d'U/ cL(1rillcd thr1K :di
lw: l'C(.l'lliti~d for. !\lir. Ji.;dniHdin W~i ''ILt"ci:.' "P!!lhJ,'!I!'.:<
l<i' crn"'.";
fHll'!O\.\.''::!'S
Iii
1."}11 i~:!1t!tt,a1~
..
'
'
'
nr
<'l\.\.'{ll"t' or
li'iill':H
\'vi\:01
..
,~ H :-!
i~ d f~t:Jlioj'{d
n1k uf
1~vidc:11u: !11dL
idl
DI
he!'
1hiug\:~ h1.-.iH;...:,.
(di
1.)tl1c:r l!1111f?I
g,nroli
\V1:iF:l1! 1lwa1 llH: nvid<:llCC t)f ;1iwi her \vii 1H::.:
1\lJ,) :~\vnnr:( t!H-d lltt:: !'iH:l did 111>( ocu.ic, for it i:1 frir rnnn. prn!Hih) !l
ihn !nHi:r h"'~" 1orgntk11 lhn H:cutT<;11cc !lwn ii ~~hould bl' di ..;lir:
intpr<'~'8nd ou thn 1n.i11d nf t iH.' fornH~r if i1 i:tt,vcr tnok pince. !\ fo:rl,,,
the !estirnouy
ti t.vit11<;~1~: H1Hl lH.: d;,ws noi j'('llh~Hd;er ii JHht iniL
11u:1Uer lHP' i'\. liUli~ or no '\Ncii::ht ns t1gHin::;l the diied tt':::;tinirnq of
\.vit:uess \Vho doe~,; n.:1111mlHr the 111nH.r. ('2.J C:oq.J11s ,Juri~,, 1'.2 L:).
1\!lnn;ov.-q, tl1<,r1., 1,.1 no douht thn1 ond l.;~;11i111m1y 11'\ to <i c1
fw.t, dtqH-.~ndilJj,: i'IS ii d!i<.'.S i":Xdff:dvdy Oil !iUl!liHI ni('!Hnry i.~"e i)i)
rclit1hlc n~; \vritten or docuruentnrv evidence. Thi:' rir:cusc:d':-1 i1Ht;g.ai'.o
lbat he ;:;ignnd tlw H~c1;ipt dr1h1d l\llny <X!. 1 l'l<Jq (l':xh:r, "'/\"In''/\ ;f'i
lilt-ink is cont.rnry lo L!:w fol!m.ving l)i~qrn!ohli: !'ri:~:1in.1p1in1r' nn~
v,nl1H.ss 1vho lt)stifii:,s 11c,,;.,jJlv1dv thnl H .:1Tlrii11 i'nct ocu.11-r11I j .. ;
::jt:Hking 1.'.11titk~1l
f;) 1.11u11:
ur
"(dJ
Tlw! a pnrsou
tnkt.:~
hi:~ C(Hlet~rns;
(p}
onlinnrv
\r
'rltll1privt:llc1rn11'.'~nctin11~'
Cdft:'
h11v1:
nr
!Htil
i\
"
,.
: ' '
~.-,,~ "
.i 1
1;
Page - S -
! ' )
,,
F /\ -: (
:\
('
tlie
. s~~~, ~~ ~1e;n~~;
~~po:1 ,'1'fi~e~~ ih~ i fW}ITT iWfY; .~a~_~) n1 cP.n-viot1on;~.'.ancl ~
. tbi~, is b'Ue 1eve:n. tl~~11&h.isuplj ;f.;.,stini9ny l(J ~~d. 1 bi5f 1 tAl.l !~GC~-~~dl (~.
,. I
["1,\
d >
,' ,..
?"~
.,.
'I
"
:"k ,
:,
,I
b :
',
r'
'1 l'
.'1~} ?
~/1' 1
:.:---
~,
,1
-:, \_,,'
i, (.~
'.'
1
1
I:' i ~) there '.)oemg n.o 'offsettlhg ),generic ~ggravatJng nor. ordituu-y
mitig~ting circ~.~~'!JDC~t. S to _V~ th~,. petlaJ.f-i :i;fl.tpo~~blm \/ { ;,& .:', .
aocortlihgtf:: l~thfi1 L B.'.ccu~ea:
J~: .~eie\l~: .sen~nc.~d;'/W ~qffer the
1
1
pemuty,-6f!~eprly~~i,n~ '.0,f ,1ib~r~; .~p1i.sTu~g,;~f .~ '.i1:Jii:irt'olf1llent uuder
tli~ Indet8;riU~~~lr~~!~~~.~~!' ~ p(~~k 1~~~, .t\NP IWO. (2).
;
.L1f
:.~'
f. }'
,, ',
SO
)'
,,
'
,,!'
\ . ''' /
~;.I
.,
,'
'1
.I'
'. .
,'
'
1'
,(
'
l ,1 . ~
OI~DERED.
: "'"
: .,:;
:nm1
I"
.''
i
;.::,',
, ,, ,
,'),
j . ~
'
\ ',',I
11
;:..
1 ,
."
[l: ,,1 ,
''..'.
'\.,
~/
1, ,
: ,.
:.'C""
,tndge~
. :.: ';
FIFTH DIVISION
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appel lee,
-versus-
LITO CORPUZ,
Accused-Appellant.
x-----------------------------~----------------------x
or
SO ORDERED. "
1'\,,,
'I.(,
It
' 2
of
XX X
Q:
A:
xx x
t-Vhat transaction if any d[i]d you
have with Mr. L ito Corpuz involving
that amount of 98 thousand pesos?
At that time when there was a casino
he approached me. He was then p 7aying.
since it was usually our side line
business to extend loan to anybody
playing casino, Lito Corpuz
approached me and asked money and
said he would return back the money
once he wins.
" x )( x
Mr. L ito Corpuz stated during his
direct examination that both of you
are agents of Mr. sala..fadia. How
long is it?
A:
Mr. Balajadia is my brother-in-law
and at that time and I was working
with him and receiving my monthly
salary from him xx x"
(TSN of January 11, 2007, p. 6)
Q:
of
" x x x
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
xx x"
(TSN of January 11, 1994, pp. 19-21)
5. As against the obviously trumped-up version of
the prosecut1 on that the re was a transaction between
accused-appellant and. Mr. Tangcoy involving an alleged
consiQnment of pieces of jewelry, the truth, as
contained in the revelations and admissions of Mr.
Tangcoy, was that the person who lent accusedappe 11 ant was Mr. Bal aj adi a, and pursuant to accused
being an agent of the former in his 1 ending
activities, was that the money came from Mr. Balajadia
as 1 oan, which accused-appe 11 ant would distribute to
different persons who were then in need of cash.
6. The version of accused-appellant contained the
natural human. actuations in the light of the true
factual background of this case. This version should
have been given credence against the version of the
prosecution which narrated of improbabilities, unusual
and unnatural sequence/s and consequences of events.
'\
of
..."'
7.
The prosecution's evidence principally
re 1 i ed on the a 11 eged "receipt" (Exh. "A") dated May
2, 1991 shown by Mr. Tangcoy as his proof of his
transaction with accused-appe 11 ant.
The Honor ab 1 e
court resolved to admit the said evidence because
accused-appellant already waived its admissibility.
we beg to take exception from this finding.
Accused-appellant did not admit the existence of this
a 11 eged receipt but maintained that accused-appe 11 ant
signed in 1989 a document without any entry. Thus,
accused-appellant categorically and straightforwardly
testified:
uxxx
A:
Q:
Q:
11
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
xx xn
I
I,
J,,."'
,,
P
'
'
'
' .~
'
",..
of
' r
I.,,
157 [1999)).
WHEREFORE,
accused-appellant most respectfully
prays that the oeci si on of March 22, 2007 be
reconsidered and set aside and that fi na 11 y, accused
be acquitted from the crime charged.
of
NINI
~uz
VERIFICATION
I, LITO CORPUZ, of legal age, married, Filipino and resident of Tabacuhan,
Olongapo City, under oath, state and depose:
That I am the accused-appellant in this case; that I voluntarily caused the
preparation of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration; that I have read and
understood the contents thereof; and that all the allegations are true and correct of my
own and my own knowledge and belief_
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my han
signature this 16th day of April 2007 in Olongapo City.
and affixed my
Accused-Appellant
/i_
111
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
day of April 2 7 in Olongapo
City, and I certify that I have examined the affiant and I am convinied at he voluntarily
executed the foregoing verification and understood the same .
.
I1I
.
1 ____
tary Public
Doc No
Pag~ N~.-V--z,J '
Book No
Series. of 200 7
1
C'.>EG1
.. ~N . l.1 E M/l/\IGOHIG
r(1 A-,\, 1;1 ,-, I'"'
~
,,.,,.. , ... cluL. ,...
(.JNTI,. OP::.~.j\,y;-L: ? i ?rJC \
o
..
. _ c1u
......._
1'Tq l\ll""l.. .Pk{1
7J