Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

Corpuz vs People of the Philippines

G.R No. 180016 April 29, 2014

Facts:
The private complainant and petitioner met at the Admiral Royale Casino on 1990.
Private complainant was then engaged
in the business of lending money to casino player. The petitioner approached the
complainant on May 2, 1991 at the same casino
and offered to sell pieces of jewelry on commission basis. The private complainant
agreed and turned over the following items:
an 18k diamond ring for men; a woman's bracelet; one men's necklace and another
men's bracelet, with an aggregate value
of PHP98,000. Both parties agreed that the petitioner shall remit the proceeds of
sale. and/or, if unsold, to return the same
items, within a period of 60days.

The complainant filed a crime of estafa to the petitioner on the ground of the said
period expired without the petitioner
remitting the proceeds of the sale or returning of the said items, and the
petitioner promised the former that he will
pay the value of the said items, but to no avail.

On the prosection, it was established that the petitioner and the private
complainant were collecting agents of Antonio
Balajadia, who is engaged in the financing of business of extending loans to Base
employees, For ever collection made, they
earn a commission. Petitioner denied having transacted any business with the
private complainant.

However, he admitted obtaining a loan from Balajadia for whcih he was made to sign
a blank receipt. He claimed that the
same receipt was then dated May 2,1991 and used as evidencet against himfor the
supposed agreement to sell the subject
jewelry, which he did not even see.

The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of Estafa

Issue:
Whether or not the demand to return the subject jewelry, if unsold, or remit the
proceeds, if sold, is a valid demand under
one of the elements of Estafa under Art. 315 of the RPC

Ruling:
Demand need not even be formal; it may be verbal. The specific word "demand" need
not even be used to show that it has
indeed been made upon the person charged, since even a mere query as to the
whereabouts of the money [in this case,
property] would be tantamount to a demand.

When the law does not qualify, We should not qualify. Should a written demand be
necessary, the law would have stated so.
Otherwise, the word "demand" should be interpreted in its general meaning as to
include both written and oral demand. The
law does not require a demand as a condition precedent to the existence of the
crime of embezzelment. It so happens only
that failuer to account, upon demand for funds or property held in trust, is
circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.

The prosectution was able to prove the existence of the all the elements of the
crime. Private complainant gave petitioner
the jewelry in trust, or on commission basis with an obligation to sell or return
the said items if unsold within 60 days.
There was misappropriation when petitioner failed to remit the proceeds of the
items sold or return the items within
60 days if failure to sold the said items.
WHEREFORE, the petition was DENIED

S-ar putea să vă placă și