Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

The elements of the offense charged were as follows:

(a) That the offender received money, goods or other personal property in trust, or on
commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to
make delivery of, or to return, the same;

(b) That the offender misappropriated or converted such money, goods or other personal
property, or denied his part in its receipt;

(c) That the misappropriation or conversion or denial was to the prejudice of another;
and

(d) That the offended party made a demand on the offender for the delivery or return of
such money, goods or other personal property
According to the theory and proof of the Prosecution, petitioner misappropriated or
converted the sums paid by her customers, and later falsified the duplicates of the
receipts before turning such duplicates to her employer to show that the customers had
paid less than the amounts actually reflected on the original receipts. Obviously, she
committed the falsification in order to conceal her misappropriation or conversion.
Considering that the falsificationwas not an offense separate and distinct from the
estafacharged against her, the Prosecution could legitimately prove her acts of
falsification as its means of establishing her misappropriation or conversion as an
essential ingredient of the crime duly alleged in the information.

Distinction should be made as to when the crimes of Estafa and Falsification will constitute as
one complex crime and when they are considered as two separate offenses. The complex crime of
Estafa Through Falsification of Documents is committed when one has to falsify certain
documents to be able to obtain money or goods from another person. In other words, the
falsification is a necessary means of committing estafa. However, if the falsification is committed
to conceal the misappropriation, two separate offenses of estafa and falsification are committed.
In the instant case, when accused collected payments from the customers, said collection which
was in her possession was at her disposal. The falsified or erroneous entries which she made on
the duplicate copies of the receipts were contrived to conceal some amount of her collection which
she did not remit to the company

Section20 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court,viz:


Section 20. Proof of private documents. Before any private document offered as authentic is received
in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:

(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or

(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.
Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court,which contains instructions on how to
prove the genuineness of a handwriting in a judicial proceeding, as follows:

Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. The handwriting of a person may be proved by
any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person
write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged,
and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the
handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings
admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (Emphases supplied)

ANNA LERIMA PATULA, G.R. No. 164457

Petitioner,
Present:

CORONA,C.J.,Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
-versus- DEL CASTILLO, and
VILLARAMA, JR.,JJ.
Promulgated:

April 11, 2012


PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondent.

The essence of this kind of estafa is the appropriation or conversion of money or


property received to the prejudice of the entity to whom a return should be made.[15]
The words convert and misappropriate connote the act of using or disposing of
anothers property as if it were ones own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use
different from that agreed upon.[16] To misappropriate for ones own use includes not
only conversion to ones personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the
property of another without right.[17] In proving the element of conversion or
misappropriation, a legal presumption of misappropriation arises when the accused fails
to deliver the proceeds of the sale or to return the items to be sold and fails to give an
account of their whereabouts.

He further testified that the petitioner could not return the ring because she had pawned
it. She strangely did not respond to this allegation. This silence, coupled with her
undeniable failure to return the diamond ring, immeasurably strengthened the element
of misappropriation. Her silence assumes great significance since the pawning of the
diamond ring was a clear violation of the Katibayan which only gave her the authority
to sell on commission or to return the ring. Acting beyond the mandate of this agency
is the conversion or misappropriation that the crime of estafa punishes.

The demand letters, on the other hand, were never disputed and thus clearly showed the
failure to return the ring or its value. In fact, even if the mortgage deed were to be
given evidentiary value, it can only stand as evidence of the return of the value of the
ring in 2003, not of anything else.

The prosecution evidence was clear and categorical, and systematically established
every element of the crime; the defense evidence, on the other hand, glaringly
suffered from contradictions, changes of theories, and deficiencies that placed its
merit in great doubt.

DULCE PAMINTUAN, G.R. No. 172820

Petitioner, Present:

CARPIO mORALES, J., Chairperson,


- versus - BRION,
BERSAMIN,
*ABAD, and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.

Respondent.
Promulgated:

June 23, 2010

To require that demand should have been made by Skiva/Olivier upon petitioner himself to uphold the
conviction of the trial court is to sustain a blind application of the law. In the case of United States v. Ramirez, 45
this Court held:

"The consummation of the crime of estafa does not depend on the fact that a request for the return of the
money is first made and refused in order that the author of the crime should comply with the obligation to return
the sum misapplied. The appropriation or conversion of money received to the prejudice of the owner thereof are
the sole essential facts which constitute the crime of estafa, and thereupon the author thereof incurs the penalty
imposed by the Penal Code."

Further, in Tubbs v. People and Court of Appeals 46 this Court ruled that "the law does not require a demand as a
condition precedent to the crime of embezzlement. It so happens only that failure to account, upon demand for
funds and property held in trust, is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation."

In Benito Sy y Ong v. People and Court of Appeals,47 we also held that in a prosecution for estafa, demand is not
necessary when there is evidence of misappropriation.

G.R. No. 149472 October 15, 2002


JORGE SALAZAR, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

As a declaration against interest, it was an exception to the hearsay rule. As a necessary and trustworthy
document, it was admissible in evidence