Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 90 views

    Corpuz V People G.R. No. 180016 April 29, 2014

    Uploaded by

    Lou
    Lito Corpuz received jewelry from complainant Tangcoy with an obligation to sell the jewelry within 30 days and return any unsold pieces or remit the proceeds of any sale. Corpuz did not do so. Tangcoy filed a case against Corpuz for estafa. The court ruled that a photocopy of the receipt was admissible evidence and that Corpuz's obligation to return the jewelry or remit proceeds constituted a valid demand under the crime of estafa. The petition for certiorari was denied, finding Corpuz obligated to return the jewelry or its monetary value.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Corpuz V People G.R. No. 180016 April 29, 2014

    Uploaded by

    Lou
    90 views2 pages
    Lito Corpuz received jewelry from complainant Tangcoy with an obligation to sell the jewelry within 30 days and return any unsold pieces or remit the proceeds of any sale. Corpuz did not do so. Tangcoy filed a case against Corpuz for estafa. The court ruled that a photocopy of the receipt was admissible evidence and that Corpuz's obligation to return the jewelry or remit proceeds constituted a valid demand under the crime of estafa. The petition for certiorari was denied, finding Corpuz obligated to return the jewelry or its monetary value.

    Original Description:

    case digest, criminal law

    Original Title

    Corpuz v People G.R. No. 180016 April 29, 2014

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Lito Corpuz received jewelry from complainant Tangcoy with an obligation to sell the jewelry within 30 days and return any unsold pieces or remit the proceeds of any sale. Corpuz did not do so. Tangcoy filed a case against Corpuz for estafa. The court ruled that a photocopy of the receipt was admissible evidence and that Corpuz's obligation to return the jewelry or remit proceeds constituted a valid demand under the crime of estafa. The petition for certiorari was denied, finding Corpuz obligated to return the jewelry or its monetary value.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    90 views2 pages

    Corpuz V People G.R. No. 180016 April 29, 2014

    Uploaded by

    Lou
    Lito Corpuz received jewelry from complainant Tangcoy with an obligation to sell the jewelry within 30 days and return any unsold pieces or remit the proceeds of any sale. Corpuz did not do so. Tangcoy filed a case against Corpuz for estafa. The court ruled that a photocopy of the receipt was admissible evidence and that Corpuz's obligation to return the jewelry or remit proceeds constituted a valid demand under the crime of estafa. The petition for certiorari was denied, finding Corpuz obligated to return the jewelry or its monetary value.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Tuozo, Lourdes Clouie D.

    Corpuz v People G.R. No. 180016 April 29, 2014


    Nature of case: Petition for Certiorari
    Facts
    Lito Corpuz received from complainant Tangcoy pieces of jewelry with an obligation to sell
    the same and remit the proceeds of the sale or to return the same if not sold, after the expiration
    of 30 days. The period expired without Corpuz remitting anything to Tangcoy. When Corpuz and
    Tangcoy met, Corpuz promised that he will pay, but to no avail. Tangcoy filed a case for estafa
    with abuse of confidence against Corpuz. Corpuz argued as that the proof submitted by Tangcoy
    (receipt) is inadmissible for being a mere photocopy, that the information was defective because
    the date when the jewelry should be returned and the date when crime occurred is different from
    the one testified to by Tangcoy, that the Fourth element of estafa or demand is not proved, and
    the Sole testimony of Tangcoy is not sufficient for conviction.

    Issue
    Whether or not the court can admit as evidence a photocopy of document without violating the
    best evidence rule.
    W h e t h e r o r n o t t h e d e m a n d t o r e t u r n t h e j e w e l r y , i f   unsold, or remit the
    proceeds, if sold, is a valid demand under one of the elements of Estafa under Art.
    315 (1b) of the RPC.

    Held
    Yes. The established doctrine is that when a party failed to interpose a timely objection to
    evidence at the time they were offered in evidence, such objection shall be considered as waived.
    Yes. It is a valid demand.
    Ruling
    The guilty party is obliged to return the jewelry based on one of the elements of article 315 of the
    RPC. Article 315 par. 4 (1b) states that: By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of
    another, money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender 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, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed
    by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property. Corpuz never
    objected to the admissibility of the said evidence at the time it was identified, marked and
    testified upon in court by Tangcoy. Corpuz also failed to raise an objection in his Comment to
    the prosecution’s formal offer of evidence and even admitted having signed the said receipt. No
    specific type of proof is required to show that there was demand. 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. Hence, the petition for
    certiorari is denied. The Court of Appeals did not err in its decision, and the petitioner Lito
    Corpuz is obligated to return the jewelry in form or in monetary value.

    You might also like