Corpuz v. People, 29 April 2014-5

8/29/22, 10:23 PM G.R. No.
180016
q Up to this time that you were here, were you able to collect from him partially or full?
a No, sir.9
No specific type of proof is required to show that there was demand.10 Demand need not even be formal; it may be
verbal.11 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.12 As expounded in Asejo v. People:13
With regard to the necessity of demand, we agree with the CA that demand under this kind of estafa need not be
formal or written. The appellate court observed that the law is silent with regard to the form of demand in estafa
under Art. 315 1(b), thus:
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. Thus, the failure of the prosecution to present a written demand as evidence is not fatal.
In Tubb v. People, where the complainant merely verbally inquired about the money entrusted to the accused, we
held that the query was tantamount to a demand, thus:
x x x [T]he law does not require a demand as a condition precedent to the existence of the crime of embezzlement.
It so happens only that failure to account, upon demand for funds or property held in trust, is circumstantial evidence
of misappropriation. The same way, however, be established by other proof, such as that introduced in the case at
bar.14
In view of the foregoing and based on the records, the prosecution was able to prove the existence of all the
elements of the crime. Private complainant gave petitioner the pieces of jewelry in trust, or on commission basis, as
shown in the receipt dated May 2, 1991 with an obligation to sell or return the same within sixty (60) days, if unsold.
There was misappropriation when petitioner failed to remit the proceeds of those pieces of jewelry sold, or if no sale
took place, failed to return the same pieces of jewelry within or after the agreed period despite demand from the
private complainant, to the prejudice of the latter.
Anent the credibility of the prosecution's sole witness, which is questioned by petitioner, the same is unmeritorious.
Settled is the rule that in assessing the credibility of witnesses, this Court gives great respect to the evaluation of the
trial court for it had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and their deportment on the
witness stand, an opportunity denied the appellate courts, which merely rely on the records of the case.15 The
assessment by the trial court is even conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact
or circumstance of weight and influence, especially when such finding is affirmed by the CA.16 Truth is established
not by the number of witnesses, but by the quality of their testimonies, for in determining the value and credibility of
evidence, the witnesses are to be weighed not numbered.17
As regards the penalty, while this Court's Third Division was deliberating on this case, the question of the continued
validity of imposing on persons convicted of crimes involving property came up. The legislature apparently pegged
these penalties to the value of the money and property in 1930 when it enacted the Revised Penal Code. Since the
members of the division reached no unanimity on this question and since the issues are of first impression, they
decided to refer the case to the Court en banc for consideration and resolution. Thus, several amici curiae were
invited at the behest of the Court to give their academic opinions on the matter. Among those that graciously
complied were Dean Jose Manuel Diokno, Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria, Professor Alfredo F. Tadiar, the Senate
President, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The parties were later heard on oral arguments before
the Court en banc, with Atty. Mario L. Bautista appearing as counsel de oficio of the petitioner.
After a thorough consideration of the arguments presented on the matter, this Court finds the following:
There seems to be a perceived injustice brought about by the range of penalties that the courts continue to impose
on crimes against property committed today, based on the amount of damage measured by the value of money
eighty years ago in 1932. However, this Court cannot modify the said range of penalties because that would
constitute judicial legislation. What the legislature's perceived failure in amending the penalties provided for in the
said crimes cannot be remedied through this Court's decisions, as that would be encroaching upon the power of
another branch of the government. This, however, does not render the whole situation without any remedy. It can be
appropriately presumed that the framers of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) had anticipated this matter by including
Article 5, which reads:
ART. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law,
and in cases of excessive penalties. - Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to
repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief
Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be
made the subject of penal legislation.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html 5/20

Corpuz v. People, 29 April 2014-5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corpuz v. People, 29 April 2014-5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corpuz v. People, 29 April 2014-5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/29/22, 10:23 PM G.R. No.

You might also like