I

~.
:~ f

'

Ar' : ,' / '

.,

1 (,'

l0

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

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

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL

Respondent.

x---------------------------------------------x
SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI
t;'",:

C,.J

Petitioner, by counse 1 , most respectful 1y submi 8

:to the Honorable Court the attached PETITION FOR
REVIEW ON CERTIORARI
of petitioner LITO CORPUZ.
In the NOTICE OF APPEAL etc. (with Motion for
Extension of Ti me to Fi 1e Petition for Review) filed
with the Honorable Court on October l, 2007,
petitioner prayed for an extension of time to file the
Petition for Review up to November 10, 2007.
Petitioner hereby files the Petition for Review on
Certiorari , copy furnished the proper parties, within
the given period.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Olongapo City for Manila; Novemrrr 9, 2007.
NJNJ

'[f.._ CRUZ

Counsel f~[the Petitioner

Mezzanine, Viacrucis Bldg.
Rizal Avenue, Olongapo City
PTR No.3643161;01ongapo;1-5-07
IBP No. 699635;01ongapo: 1-24-07
Roll No. 28763

II'\

'.I

,, ::

"',. :,~I',,
j ' u ' 11

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

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.
~"'

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

)

.;

Petitioner LITO CORUZ, by bis Undersigned counsel, most respectfully

states in this Petition that:

I.

,.
i.'

~1

NATURE OF THE PETITION

;,.':

'},!

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 DECISION AND RESOLUTION APPEALED FROM

The Honorable Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated March 22, 2007,
convicted petitioner for ~stafa, under the following dispositive portion:

"WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The

assailed Judgment dated July 24, 2004 of RTC of San
Fernando City (P), Branch 46 is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION on the imposable penalty of 4 years and 2
months ofprision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years of
prision mayor, as maximum, plus 1 year for each additional
P 10, 000. 00 or a total of 7 years. The rest of the Decision
stands.
SO ORDERED. "

'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.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

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

of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, after having

received from one Danilo Tangcoy, one (1) men's diamond ring,
1BK worth Php45, 000. 00; one (1) three-baht men 's bracelet, 22K
worth Php25,000.00; one (1) two-baht men's necklace, 22
worthPhpl6,000.00; and one (1) two-baht ladies' bracelet, 22K
worth Phpl2,000.00 or in the total amount of Ninety Eight
Thousand Pesos (Php98, 000. 00), Philippine Currency, under the
express obligation on the part of said accused to remit the
proceeds of the saleof the said items or to return the same, if not
sold, but said accused, once in possession of the said items, with
intent to defraud, and with unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence,
and far from complying with his aforestated obligation, did then
and there willfully, unlawfally and feloniously misappropriate,
misapply and convert to his own personal use and benefit the
aforesaid jewelries or the proceeds ofsale thereof, and despite
repeated demands, the accusedfailed and refused to return the
said items or to remit the amount ofNinety Eight Thousand Pesos
(Php98, 000. 00) Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice
ofsaid Danilo Tangcoy in the aforementioned amount.
CONTRARY TO LAW. "

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.

The defense called petitioner-accused as its only witness;

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;

11. Petitioner"'.accused appealed from the Decision of the lower Court

with the Honorable Court of Appeals, and the said appeal was docketed as CAG.R. CR No. 28983; that both prosecution and petitioner"'.accused filed their
respective Briefs with the Honorable Court of Appeals;
12. In the Decision, Annex "A", dated March 22, 2007, the Honorable
Court of Appeals denied the appeal; that petitioner seasonably filed his Motion
for Reconsideration, Annex "F" hereof, which was, however, again denied by the
Honorable Court of Appeals in a Resolution promulgated on September 5, 2007.
HENCE, TIIlS PETITION.

,1 . ..1.:

Ilt
1

-~

r1~.'

t
i

V.

GROUNDS FOR THE PETITION

,
A.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
,'CONFIRMING THE ADMISSION AND APPRECIATION BY THE LOWER
COURT OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE, INCLUDING ITS EXHIBITS,
WHICH ARE MERE MACHINE COPIES, AS THIS VIOLATES THE BEST
'.EVIDENCE RULE;
B.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED . IN
AFFIRMING THE LOWER COURT'S FINDING THAT THE CRIMINAL
INFORMATION FOR ESTAFA WAS NOT FATALLY DEFECTIVE
ALTHOUGH THE SAME DID NOT CHARGE THE OFFENSE UNDER
ARTICLE.315 (1) (b) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE IN THAT1. THE INFORMATION DID NOT FIX A PERIOD WITHIN
WHICH THE SUBJECT JEWELRY SHOULD BE RETURNED, IF UNSOLD,
OR THE MONEY TO REMITTED, IF SOLD;
2. THE DATE OF THE OCCURRENCE OF THE CRIME
ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION AS 05 JULY 1991 WAS MATERIALLY
DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE TESTIFIED TO BY THE PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT WHICH WAS 02MAY1991;
C.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
AFFIRMING THE LOWER COURT'S FINDING THAT DEMAND TO
RETURN THE SUBJECT JEWELRY, IF UNSOLD, OR REMIT THE
PROCEEDS, IF SOLD- AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE- WAS PROVED;
D.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
AFFRIMING
THK~: LOWER
COURT'S
FINDING
THAT
THE
PROSECUTION'S CASE WAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
ALTHOUGH1.
THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT TESTIFIED ON TWO (2)
VERSIONS OF THE INCIDENT;

2. THE VERSION OF THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED IS MORE

STRAIGHTFORWARD AND LOGICAL, CONSISTENT WITH HUMAN
EXPERIENCE;
3. THE EQUIPOISE RULE WAS NOT APPRECIATED IN AND
APPLIED TO THIS CASE;
4. PENAL STATUTES ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED
AGAINST THE STATE.

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 -

"Basic is the rule ofEvidence that when the subject

of inquiry is the contents ofthe documents, no evidence is
admissible other than the original document itself except
in the instances mentioned in Section 3, Rule 130 if
the Revised Rules ofCourt. Mere photocopies qfdocuments
are inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence role. xx x. "

''Ii

,I,'',.''
,1

<

,:

:
'

" .r
/('.

In Gobonseng vs. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 472 [1995], this Honorable
Court ruled:

"Mere photocopies of documents are admissible

pursuant to the best evidence rule under Section 2, Rule
130 of the Rules ofCourt."
The transcript of stenographic notes taken on 17 December 1992, pp 8-9
thereof: Annex "G" hereof: during the direct-examination of private complainant
Danilo Tangcoy reveals:
DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF DANILO TANGCOY
BY PROSECUTOR MARIO MARTINEZ

"q.
a.

Was the agreement in writing or was it made orally?

In writing, sir.

q.

Now, ifyou can see that the agreement in writing, will

you be able to identify it?
Yes, sir.

a.

........ :if ~ 11J lJ

q.

a.

ul
).i

)''

I will show you a xerox copy ofa receipt executed on

2 May 1991 covering 1 men 's diamond ring, 1 BK valued
at Php45, 000. 00; 103-baht men bracelet, 22K valued at
Php25,000.00; 12 baht 22K Bracelet valued at Php12,000.00
with aggregated value ofPhp98,000.00. Now, look at this
document and inform this Honorable Court if that is the
Agreement that you prepared"
Yes, sir. " (Highlighting ours)

The same "xerox" copy was subsequently offered in the prosecution's

Formal Offer ofEvidence on 03 January 1993; that despite the comment of the
defense, it was admitted in evidence by the Order of Judge Calderon dated
January 4, 1993. The admission of Exhibits A and series was made even if the
original was never presented nor was it explained by the prosecution that the
same original was lost, destroyed or in the possession of the accused;
It was thus a reversible error on the part of Judge Calderon to admit the
Exhibits. If the same were held admissible, then the prosecution would have no
evidence in the case. Tims, when these Exhibits were discussed and appreciated
. by the Honorable Judge Daing in his Decision (pp. 2 and 3 of the Judgment,
. Annex "E"), he committed a fatal error.

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 was flawed as to the material date of the

:,:

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:.

/,

'

'

\.

,'

'

DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF DANILO TANGCOY

BY PROSECUTOR MARIO MARTINEZ

.yf',

"q.
,;.:.'

.,

b.

Now, on 02 May 1991, did you- have any occasion

to meet the accused, Lito Corpuz?
Yes, sir.

q.
b.

Where at?
At the Casino at Magsaysay Drive, sir.

q.
b.

Do you remember ifyou have any money transaction on that day?

Yes, sir.

q:
a:

What was that transaction?

That he approached me because he heard that I have items like
jewelries and asked me if I am selling these items and inquired
how much are those jewelries and asked me ifI want to make
proceeds out of these, sir. And I said yes.

,'

. ,,

'' .~ 1'

. r, ,

q.
a.

t., ;

'''

q.
a.

What pieces ofjewelries are you referring to?

Could you name them?
A diamond ring/or men, J8K; a women's bracelet and 3-baht
bracelet for men and one bracelet for men, sir.
So there are four pieces ofjewelries all in all?
Yes, sir.

q.

Do you remember how much is the aggregate value of those

jewelries?

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

.. " . ..' ,' I!'

l..
.'

1.9

:Jestified to by the private complainant. Consequently, a material allegation in the

1nfonnation was not proven by the prosecution;
1

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:

"The elements of the crime are: (1) that personal

property is received in tnist, on commission, for administration
or under any other circumstance involving the duty to make
the delivery of or to return the same, even though the obliga.tion
is guaranteed by a bond; (b) that there is no conversion or
diversion of such property by the person who has so received it
or a denial on his part that he received it; (c) that such conversion,
diversion or denial is to the injury ofanother; and (d) that there
be demand for the return ofthe property. "
The above-quoted fonnulation was followed in Fontanilla vs. People, 258
SCRA 460[1996] and in Barrameda vs. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 477 [1999].
The prosecution miserably failed to establish that the private complainant
made a demand to accused-appellant to return the jewelries if unsold, or remit the
money if sold. The private complainant testified before the lower Court:

'i
:

DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF DANILO TANGCOY

BY PROSECUTOR MARIO MARTINEZ

q.

q.

Now, Mr. Witness, this was executed on 02 May 1991, and

this transaction could have beenfinished on 05July1991, the
question is what happens when the deadline came? What did
you do?
I was looking for him, sir.

q.
a.

For whom?
Lito Corpuz, sir.

q.

Were you able to look for him?

I look for him for a week, sir.

a.

1
,I

'

q:
a:

Did you know his residence?

Yes, sir.

q.
a.

Did you go there?

Yes, sir.
9

'"
'J
....... '[,,,'"'n

q.

a.

a.

Were you able to talk to him since July 05; 1991?

I talked to him, sir.

q.
a.

How many times?

Two times, sir.

q.
a.

What did you talk to him?

About the items I gave to him, sir.

q.

Referring to Exhibit A-2?

Yes, sir, and according to him he will take his obligation
and I asked him where the items are and he promised
me that he will pay these amount, sir.

q.

: ~

Did you hind him?

No, sir.

'

'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)

But during the re-cross-examination, private complainant showed

indications of uncertainty on this issue of demand. Upon questioning, he was
:,',.more tentative. He was almost unsure. Again, the transcript of stenographic notes
reveals:
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DANILO TANGCOY
BY ATTY. RENATO COLLADO

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)

The iriconsistency between Mr. Tangcoy's testimony on direct-examination

and his re-cross-examination was obvious. In the re-cross-examination, he
admitted that. he did not see petitioner-accused even after two (2) months from 05
July 1991. The two-month period that he failed to see prtitioner-accused meant
that even as late as September 1991, he did not see nor talk to petitioner-accused.
10

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:

"Accusation is not synonymous with guilt. xx x. Proof

against him must be taken into account. Proofagainst him must
survive the test of reason; the stronger suspicion must not be
permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must be satisfied
that on the defendant could be laid the responsibility for the
offense charged What is required is moral certainty. "

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:

"In criminal cases, the burden is on the prosecution to

prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the essential elements of the
offense with which the accused is charged; and if the proof fails
to establish any ofthe essential elements necessary to constitute
a crime, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree ofproof as, excluding
the possibility oferror, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty
only is required, or that degree ofproof which produces conviction
in an unprejudiced mind. xx i. "
Petitioner now respectfully declares that the proof adduced against him by
the State did not satisfy the requirement of moral certainty and proof beyond
reasonable doubt. The conscience cannot rest easy since there are gaps and loose
ends that refuse to tie up in this case. Hence, a judgment of acquittal is the logical
course of action proper under the circumstances;
5.
02 1991

The private complainant had two (2) versions of the incident on May

During his direct testimony on 17 December 1992, private

complainant answered that his alleged transaction with the accused on 02 May
1991 was about jewelry, as shown in the transcript of the stenographic notes:

11

. I 1 L.

2.,

"

I. ,

'

'

'"i . '

m.ECT-EXAMINATION OF DANILO TANGCOY

V PRA~~I-TTAR MAIDA MARTJNP.7.

"
/\
,, 1-'''

q.

a.

\'

q.
a.

What was that transaction?

That he approached me because he heard that I have
items like jewelries and I asked me ifI am selling
. these items and inquired how much are these jewelries
and asked me ifI want to make proceeds out of these,
sir. And I said yes.
What pieces ofjewelries are you referring to?
Could you name them?
A diamond ring/or men, l BK; a women's bracelet and
3-baht bracelet for men and one bracelet for men, sir.
xxx

q.
a.

q.
a.

q.

.ff

a.
q.
a.

q.
a.
q.
a.

Do you remember how much is the aggregate value of

those jewelries?
About Php98,000.00, sir.
What was your agreement with the accused Lito Corpuz
with regards to these four pieces ofjewelries?
He is going to sell these items and he told me that if he
could sell these, sir. What I need is only these jewelries,
the value of those jewelries and I will give him for
consideration, sir.

Your agreement is that he will take these jewelries and

sell them in values quoted? What happens is that his
commission will be the over price ofthe values of the
jewelries you have stated?
Yes, sir.
And what else? In the event that these four pieces of
jewelries, what happens then? Jfhe cannot sell it?
He will return the jewelries to me, sir.
Was there any deadline agreed upon for purpose of
selling or returning it?
The deadline is sixty days, sir.
The purpose of returning it if he cannot sell it, was
there any deadline?
Yes, sir.
12

~ ;!iJ 1r II

'
li

. :).
2
:...

.L

q.
a.

How many days?

Well, I told him if he can sell these it takes or our
agreement is sixty days, sir." (TSN of 17 December 1992, p. 6)

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 ;

DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF DANILO TANGCOY

BY PROSECUTOR MARIO MARTINEZ ON REBUTTAL
"q.

a.
q.

a.

So, do we understandfrom you that you did not give

any cash to Lito Cotpuz?
I gave him the cash and the jewelries.
And the amount ojjewelries is how much?
98 thousand, sir.
I

a.

q.
a.

And where did you get the cash?

From my own, sir.

q.

Did you get it from somebody else?

No, sir.

a.

q.
a.

)(

, . rt

And the cash?

10 thousand pesos, sir.

q.

I:

1.

When you gave the cash of 10 thousand pesos and the

pieces ofjewelries out ofthe 98 thousand, what was your
understanding? Will you please tell us?
Insofar as the jewelries and cash are concerned he will
give back the principal amount ofthe money plus the
interest. The proceeds of the jewelries will also be given
to me." (TSN, 11 January 1994, pp. 12-14)

Pressed by the defense if the loan of Phpl0,000.00 is also covered by

the written agreement, his answer was evasive. He did not respond to the question
in a simple and straightforward .manner. As events later on played out, there was
no written evidence on the loan of PhpI0,000.00. It was irrstional for Mr.
Tangcoy to have the jewelry covered by a written agreement (Exhibits A to A-3
of the prosecution), but the loan of Phpl0,000.00 would be simply oral in nature.
If the transaction took place on the same date, why would one be different from
one another? The only explanation is that the so-called Exhibits A to A-3 were
manufactured evidence written in the paper of JBL, which meant Antonio
Balajadia, the real financier;

13

,,,

! : ('

: : I!

l1

..... It

{(

6.

Petitioner's version of the incident is more straightforward and

:jeffll~t~tent w1th hnm~m fflfflenenee

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\

.. ~

. f;,DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF LITO CORPUZ

..;)BY ATTY. RENATO COLLADO

;l,1''1

~~} ',,

~i>

q.
a.

Do you know any business transaction with Mr. Tangcoy?

None, sir.

q.
a.

How about Antonio Balajadia?

Yes, sir.

~:(i

"

q.
a.

And why do you know Antonio Balajadia?

He is thefinancier, sir.

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.

Do you earn any commission or compensation from it?

4% goes to us and 6% to him, sir.

You mean you take this from the interest?

Yes, sir.

A11Y. COLLADO:
q.

a.
q.

a.

On your own, did you borrow money from Mr. Balajadia?

Yes, sir.
How much?
Php3,000.00, sir.

/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.

There is a date entered 2 May 1991, is this the date you

signed this?
No, sir.

q.
a.

There is a document here which reads "RECEIVED FROM

DANILO M TANGCOY" and marked in evidence as Annex
1 dated 2 May 1991. Will you please tell us ifyou actually
signed it?
Yes, sir.

q.
a.

a.

. Could you actually remember the date?

1989, sir. The first time I borrowed money was the first time
in 1989, sir.

q.
a.

Have you seen the jewelries mentioned in this document?

No, sir." (TSN, 08 July 1993, p. 4-5)

7.

Equipoise Rule in Criminal Cases should apply in this case

In People vs. Benemerito, 264 SCRA 677 [1996], this Honorable Court
followed the formulation of the Equipoise Rule:

"The rule provides that where the evidence ofthe parties

in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional
presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the
accused x x x. "
In People vs. Cawaling, 293 SCRA 267 [1998], the Honorable Court
reiterated the same rule:

"xx x. In People vs. Lagans, the Court, through Mr.

Justice Florenz D. Regalado, described this rule as follows:
"Once again, albeit in effect a supportive and cumulative
consideration in view of the preceding disquisition, the equipoise
rule finds application in this case, that is, if the inculpatory
facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations,
one ofwhich is consistent with the innocence of the accused and

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

Penal statutes are strictly construed

"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

Counsel for the etitioner

Mezzanine, Viacrucis Bldg.
Rizal Avenue, Olongapo City
PTR No.3643161;01ongapo;1-5-07
IBP No. 699635;01ongapo: 1-24-07
Roll No. 28763

16

I
I

''

P-~--t

... ...::11'l

. .i.. .i

'l

?7
-

REGISTRY RECEIPT

I.

aae ~ inquiry

;'cc: The Hon. Court of Appeals

Manila
The Hon. Solicitor-General
Makati City
Branch 46- Regional Trial Court
City of San Fernando, Pampanga

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

That I have not theretofore commenced any other action involving

the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different
divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, and to the best of my
knowledge, no such other action or claim has been filed or is pending
before the therein; and that if thereafter we should learn that a similar
action or claim has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or
agency, I undertake to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other
tribunal or agency thereof within 5 days therefrom.

\
\

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed

my signature this 30th day of October 2007 in Olongapo City.
)

I
i

. I

!)_th

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this

day of November 2007 in
Olongapo City, and I certify that I have examined the affiant and I am cq,
need that
,
she voluntarily executed the foregoing verification and understood the s e.
Doc. No.~
Page No...

Book No._
Series of 2007

Nata 4ublic
,, 0

I
E'

en Ai~\

MANSOHI~

;=:~iSL 1::;
!JN T L GFCr-.:~"~P.~t;. ~::

eT~. "h":i .j,_Ci lf3f}.(l

,.,.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

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before . me this ~ of November

2007 in 01 ongapo City with the affi ant showing to e her CTC
No. 05310978 issued in Olongapo City on Jan. 24, 200' .
//

/
//

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

'

Republic of the Philippines

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

Records, pp. 138-142.

;.

11

CA-G.R. CR No.18983
Decision

2
f;

f I

L . l I

I \

x-----------------------------x

1 ,

3 r;

""

AS MINIMUM, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS AND EIGHT (8)

MONTHS of Reclusion Temporal in its minimum period AS
MAXIMUM; to indemnify private complainant Danilo Tangcoy the
mnount of P98,000.00 as actual damages; and to pay the costs of
suit.
SO ORDERED."

When arraigned on January 28, 1992, accused-appellant,

assisted by counsel, entered a plea of "NOT GUlLTY" to the crime
charged. 2
The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:
So111etin1e in 1990, private complainant Danilo Tangcoy
(hereinafter Tangcoy) and accused-appellant 111et at the Ad1niral
Royale Casino in Olongapo City. Tangcoy was then engaged in the
business of lending 111oney to casino players. Up01'1 hearing that the
latter has son'le jewelries for sale, accused-appellant approached
Tangcoy on May 2, 1991 at the casino and offered to sell the san1e on
con'l111ission basis to which Tangcoy agreed. As a consequence, the
latter turned over to accused-appellant the following items: an 18k
diainond ring for n'len; a won1an' s bracelet; one (1) n'len' s nee klace
and another inen' s bracelet, with an aggregate value of P98,000.00:', as
evidenced by a receipt4 of even date. The parties agreed that accusedappellant shall ren1it the proceeds of the sale thereof, and/ or, if
unsold, to return the saine iten1s, within a period of 60 days. 5 The
said selling period expired without accused-appellant having
re1nitted the proceeds of the sale nor returned the jewelries that
Tangcoy enhusted to hin'l. 6 When they finally n'let, accused-appellant
pron'lised Tangcoy that he will pay the value of the said items but he
reneged on such undertaking.7
On cross-exa1nination, private complainant claimed that his
business relations with accused-appellant was an isoloted transaction
H.ecords, p. 39.
TSN, December 17, 1992, pp. 4-6.
~Records, p. 7.
STSN, December 17, 1992, p. 7.
"TSN, December 17, 1992, pp. 9-Hl
2

',',

Ibid.

'

'

CA-G.R. CR No. 28983

Decision
x------ -----------------------x

. . . "'

: 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."

Accused-appellant raised the defense of denial and alleged that:

I-Ie and Tangcoy were collecting agents of Antonio Balajadic_1
(hereinafter Balajadia) who is engaged in the financing business of
extending loans to Base employees; that for every collection made,
they earn a commission equiva~ent to 4 % thereof while the 5 % goes to
Balajadia. 10 I-Ie also recruited some borrowers for the la ttcr.11
H TSN,

December 17, 19':J2, p. 12.

"Records, p. 1.
to TSN, July 8, 1993, pp. 3-4.
11 TSN, July 8, 1993, p. 9.

(.

,,
d
,I

')

/!
I

, lo
CA-G.R. CR No.18983
Decision

x-----------------------------x

He denied having transacted business with the private

co1nplainant12 nor owed hin1 anything13 . :He, however, adn1itted
obtaining a loan fron1 Balajadia son1etin1e in 1989 for which he was
111ade to sign a blank receipt. 14 He posited that the san1e receipt was
then dated May 2, 1991 and used as evidence against hin1 for the
supposed agree1nent to sell the listed jewelries, which ite1ns he did
not even see. 15
On July 30, 2004, the RTC issued the assailed Judgn1ent
convicting accused-appellant as charged. I-Ience, this appeal based on
the following assign1nent of errors, to wit:
"A. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING
PROSECUTION'S EXHIBIT A INCLUDING ITS SUB-MARKINGS
AS EXHIBITS A-1, A-2 AND A-3 WHICH IS A MERE XEROX
COPY AS THIS VIOLATES THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE;
B. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE
INFORMATION AS FRAMED IS FATALLY DEFECTIVE AS IT
DOES NOT CHARGE THE OFFENSE OF ARTICLE 315 (1) (b) OF
THE REVISED PENAL CODE:
B-1. THE INFORMATION DOES NOT FIX A PERJOD
WITHIN WHICH THE JEWLERIES MUST BE RETURNED
IF UNSOLD, OR THE MONEY TO BE REMITTED JF SOLD;
B-2. THE DATE OF THE OCCURRENCE OF THE CRIME
ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION AS 05 JULY 1991 IS
MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE TESTIFIED
TO BY THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT WHICH IS 02 MAY
1991;
C. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT
DEMAND TO RETURN THE JEWELRIES IF UNSOLD OR REMIT
THE PROCEEDS IF SOLD - AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT;

Ibid., p. 4.
Ibid., p. 11.
14 TSN, July 8, 1993, pp. 4-5.
is TSN, July 8, 1993, p. 5.
12
t3

1'

CA-G.R. CR No. 28983

Decision
x-----------------------------x

.....

l.

\.

3 ~j

D. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT

THE PROSECUTION'S CASE WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT:
D-1. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING
THAT TI-IE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT I-IAS TWO (2)
VERSIONS OF THE INCIDENT;
D-2. TI~lE LO\iVER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING
THAT THE VERSION OF THE ACCUSED JS MORE
STRAIGHTFORWARD AND LOGICAi~, CONSISTENT
WITH HUMAN EXPERIENCE;
D-3. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT APPL YING
THE EQUIPOISE RULE TO THJS CASE;
D-4. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT
PENAL STATUTES ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED
AGAINST THE ST ATE." 1

The appeal is bereft of inerit.

At the outset, the Court noted that herein accused-appellant
iJ11pugns the validity of the assailed Judgment on both procedural
and substantive grounds. On the matter of procedure, he clai1ns that
the RTC conunitted reversible error in ad111itting in evidence the
receipt 17 dated May 2, 1991 n1arked as Exhibit "A" and its
subn1arkings despite the fact that the same is a mere xerox copy in
violation of the best evidence rule. 18 Such argun1ent is untenable. An
exarnination of the records discloses that accused-appellant did not
object to the adn1issibility of the said docu1nent at the ti111e it was
identified and inarked in court as well as testified upon by the
private con1plainant. 19 Neither did he raise such objection in his
Con1111ent20 to the prosecution's orn1al offer of evidence. Instead, f\
accused-appellant adn1itted having signed the san1e. 21 As such, any l2,,J
objection as to its ad111issibility is deemed waived. On this score, the
Rollo, pp. 46-47.
Records, p. 65.
IK H.ollo, pp. 47-52.
19
TSN, December 17, 1992, pp. 8-9.
20 Records, p. 75.
21 TSN, July 8, 1993, p. 5.
16
17

'

if.'~

',.,

CA-G.R. CR No. 28983

Decision

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.

.. -

As explained in Abrcnic:1 vs. Gonda, d al, ir h.<1s been

repeatedly laid dovvn as a rule of evidence Lh<1t a protest or
objection against the admission of any evidence nmst be m<1dc <1l
the proper time, otherwise, it will be deemed vvaivcd. The proper
time is when from the question addressed to the witness, or from
the answer thereto, or from the presentation of the proof, the
inadmissibility of the evidence is, or m<1y be inferred.
Thus, a failure to except to the evidence because it docs not
conform with the statute is a waiver of the provisions c1f the L:n,v."'

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

C.R. No. 140752, November 11, 2005.

GR. No. 128888, December 3, 1999.
',,'
'\

I;

CA-G.R. CR No. 28983

Decision

"

,.

'

' !

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

H.ollo, pp. 52-56.

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

CA-G.R CR No. L'.8983

Decision

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

CA-G.R. CR No. L8983

Decision

3n

x-----------------------------x

accused of the inoney or property subject of the Information. In a

prosecution for estafa, den1and is not necessary where there 1s
evidence of inisappropriation or conversion. However, failure to
account upon den1and, for funds or property held in trust, 1s
circu111stantial evidence of n1isappropriation." 35
I--Iis denial of the receipt of the said jewelries also sufficiently
inakes out a case for estafa which defense is contradicted by the
receipt (Exhibit "A") docun1enting the subject transaction and his
adn1ission of having signed the same. Settled is the rule that being
negative and self-serving, denial deserves no weight in law when
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. 36 It is a weak
defense which to be believed, n1ust be buttressed by strong evidence
of non-culpability. 37 In the instant case, other than accused-appellant,
no other wih1ess was presented by the defense to corroborate his
clain1s. The Court likewise noted that, other than his bare allegation
thereon, accused-appellant failed to substantiate his assertion that it
was Antonio Balajadia who instigated the filing of the instant
con1plaint to teach hin1 a lesson for not paying his indebtedness?is,
which contention is equally belied by the said receipt (Exhibit "A")
that an1ply supported private complainant's cause of action in this
case. ''Denials of an accused cannot be given greater evidentiarv
weight than the positive declarations of credible witnesses who
testify on affirn1ative n1atters. Verily, the trial court was correct in
accepting the version of the prosecution witnesses as their staten1ents
are positive and affirn1ative in nature. Their testimonies are more
worthy of credit than the uncorroborated and self-serving denials of
appellant."3 9
L-'

L.1

../

Accordingly, no reversible error was con1n1itted by the RTC in

convicting accused-appellant as charged. I-lowever, considering that
the an1ount involved in this case is P98,000.00, the Court finds that
there is a need to inodify the penalty herein in1posed. Article 315 of
the RPC provides that the penalty for estafa as therein defined is
10

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

"prision correccional in its n1axin1un1 period to prision 111ayor in its

n1ini1nun1 period, if the an1ount of the fraud is over 12,000 but does
not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such an1ount exceeds the latter su1Tl,
the penalty provided x x x shall be i1nposed in its maximL1111 period,
adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total
penalty which may be i1nposed shall not exceed twenty years."
I-Ience, the proper in1posable penalty in this case should be 4 years
and 2 inonths of prision correccionaL as minimum, to 8 years of
prision n1ayor, as 111aximurn, plus J year for each adclitionc1l
P10,000.00 or a total of 7 years.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed

Judg1nent dated July 30, 2004 of the RIC of San Fernando City (P),
Branch 46 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION on the
in1posable prison tenn such that accused-appellant shall suffer the
indetenninate penalty of 4 years and 2 rnonths of prision
correccional, as 111inin1un1, to 8 years of prision mayor, as raxin1urn,
plus 1 year for each additional Pl0,000.00 or a total oft}rears. The
rest of the Decision stands.
SO ORDERED.

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

l: i (,'' ':t ':'

'\ " 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",l\,'~/\iVlll'I) I,,, :1.11rl

I ' I I< I ,/\ '.'~ . l :\ I I\ ~I /\ l l
1',

1',

1', ,

\ 1',

"

!,/

IJ.\'{) c:(!\\l~U'/,,
/\ccu.';l:d ./\ppcl Ian!.

SEP 0 5 Z007

1\,

.JI

w(:

I,'

!.1; ()I \ (; ( )\/ (;I i\il; :J 11 i; ! ',: I I i ()I

Ii: l v c

lYluliu11 [:DI. l\c,;u1i::iclc1:1l:iu11 1

1ll ()cl

i I i c; :1 I: i ()I\

()I' l'l: vc I;): I I

:u1d

\::

I LI \(; : \.I : c I I:',\: d : I \l p1: 11 : 11 I i i I \ I I I

l)

l'o1rncl IHJ ::11lrd::111Li:d :1.1',",lll\ll:11\ ill v/:111:111\ :1

u I' ( }111 I )l: c; i:-: i \)I/ I I: tll; cl M: ii'('. I I

)), 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,,

1~11 \ \,,,, pp. I l 'l . i 'J

Iii id, 1111 I il!i I I (i

/.

'

'

11 ' (

I I,'

' ,' '

.~.<..I)

;\\ _ '' ')': "'\ ( ). ('I ' '1

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~)

PltO.Pl. .I!~ Oli' 'I'fIE

P H I 1, I P P :l l\f Jt. S,
'.ll]I~

J~I'I'O

CORPUZ,

Ac c t1 s ed.
x - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- --

-x

JUDGMEN1'
------ --

---

~--

-~-

----~

'l'ho above captiotH)d t:w~e roJor~ io oue f.unong i-wver.1-d 0U1tn

cEu:iml fanued out frou1 Branch. 7.5 of !~TC-, Olongapo City, tmd rn
rallled to this branch for decision.

J\ccw!wd Ll'l'O COl:..:'..PUZ stan.d~,1 dJ<:u:ged of Estafa under Article

J 15, p.e.tragraph one ( 1), Htilmectinn (h) of the Nevised Penal Code in nn
indictm.cnt hereun.der quoted :

'rhe utulerH:igned flccuses Li to Corpuz of the crime

_.
r-:
t
c:1JJ. . 1~ - 1 r:1n<.
I_ pct.I.cl
- -. - : 1'.1A.t.--<.1
,:..- :1 tUl<
-I
'-~ l;c:
o..I ... s a t'd-. as
HJ.t,c.
tA A--1-
1 J<,'1'-'
t, ...,
~J,
Par. l fb) of the H.evised Penal Code, GOll1tt_1.itted a.s
follows :

That on. or about tho fiflh (51h) df!y of .Jnly, 1991,

in .the City of 01ong<-:lpo, PhilippineH, and within the
jurisdi.ction of this Honorable Court, the ahove-ntimod
aeclrned, flJler having received frou1 one Da11ilo
'l'angcoy, one ( l) rnen~s rlifltnond riug, ! HK, worth
P4D,000.00; m-w (1) tl1ree-hith1 n1eu\, h1-a<:elet, 2~K,
worth P2.S,000.00; one ( 1) two baht 11n:;u'1,1 tH:~c.k.ldce,
22K, worth Pl6,000.00; and one {l) tv,robaht ladies.'
bracelet, 22K worth P 12,000.00, or in tlu~ total amount
of Ninety Eight 'l'housftnd
Peso8 (P98,000 .00) ,.
, Philippine C~urr()ncy, undor tl1e expresi~ obligation 011
th.e pt.rrt of f.lflid acct18od to rem.it the pr<)CfHHls of tho
~~~flle of the t~t:tid itonrn ox to reinrn the ~1t-uno 1 if not Kold 1
8nid tu~c-trned, on ct:) in J'H>~8eiH>ion of tho sttid iten:1~1 1 vv-ith
intent to defraud, ttnd with tmfaiU1fulnt:~sN ond fllrn:-:m of
confidence, and .for frorn con11>l:ying \Vith his tlforestat1:(l
ohtigatitnl, did tlwn and there 'l"1iHfully, tu.11.i.n:vfoily n_nd

''''"feloniously' inappropriatelyJmisapply and convert to his

own personal use and benefit the afo1esaid jewelries. or
the proceeds of the sale thereof, and despite repeated
demands, the aooused failed and iefused to return the
said items or to remit the amount of Ninety Eight
Thousand Pe$os (P98,000.00), Philippine Cw-rency, to
the dam.age &1d prejudi.oe of said Danilo TBngcoy in the
aforementioned am.aunt.
CONTRARY TO IAW:
CifARI1~0

B. GONZALES
Fourth Assistant City Prosecutor
TAN: 5194-672-15"

(pp. 1 &

2~

Rollo).

In its OrdM dated October 24t 1991, RTC Branch 7 5, Olonga.po

City ordered the arrest of the accused with bail fixed at PlO,Q00.00

(pp. 22 to 24, Rollo).

On October 25, 1991 RTC Bran.oh 75, Olongtlpo City, admitted
the accused to surety bail (p. 33, l~ollo).

Arraigned on Janum.y 28, 1992, the accused entered a plea of

not guilty (pp. 37-40, Rollo).
.:,
'

,,,

On September 24, 1992 RTC Branch 75, Olongapo City CB.Ille

out with an Order (p. 56, Rollo) to the effect that
a.Qcused through
counsel waived (?) bis tight to pre-trial.

the

For its wltI1ess, the prosecution presented private complainant

Danilo Tangooy, while the defense presented the accused I.;ito
. .,
Corpuz
'
'
The prosecution formally offered its evidence on January oa,,
1993 (pp. 62 .. 65, Rollo) commented on by the defense (pp. 75076,
_Rollo). In its Order dated January 14, 1993 (p. 77 t l~ollo), the Court
ad:nrltted Ex.h. "A" to. "A-3."
On July 13, 1993 the defense offered in evidence E.Xh. '~ 1" to "2F" which the Court admitted in its Order dated July 13, 1993 (p. 107,
Rollo).

Private compJa:i:uant DANILO TANGCOY testifiecl on direotexamination as follows :

He came to know. the accused :in 1990 when th~y met at the Adntlral
Royal Casino. On Ma.y 02, 1991 they met agafu at the casino at
Magsayllay Drive. The aocused approached him regarding his
business of aellln.g pieces of jewelry. They transacted, evidenced by
the Receipt dated. May 02, 1991 (Exhs. "A'' to A..,3'') showjJ:ig that the
accused received .from him four (4) pieces of jewelry valued at
P98',000.00 in the aggregate, with. the obligation to remit the proceeds
of the sale or, to return said pieces of jewelry to him. in the same\
condition, if unsold, on or before July 05, 1991. The accused would
.

,/

'

Page .. 3 _,..

t.> IJ

de1ive income from owrpdceJ in such amounts as may exceed

P98,000.00. The accu.sed failed.to remit the pioceeds of the sale, and
did not anyznore return the pieces of jeweJry on July 05, 1991. He
looked for the accused for one ( 1) week and when found, talked to the
accused twice. 'lb.e accused, upon demand. promised to pay the value
of the jewelry amounting to P98JOOO.OO.
Cross-exam.inedt DANILO TANGCOY testified thus :
He is engaged in the business of lending money at the casino since
1990. He is not engagecl in the business of selling jelN'elry. JBJ.,, Inc. is
the business name of his brother-in-law, Antonio Balajadia. Itl some
previous instances, fi:e had sold the jewrelry to other persons. He
purchased the subjectjeweky in 'rhailar.1d.
On re-direct examination, DANILO 'l~GCOY stated that he
prepared the Receipts (E'xhs. "A" to "A-3j in the evening. He borrowed
the JBL, Ino. receipt of his brothm-in-ltl.W, Antonio Balajadia.
Re-cross e;uu:n.ined, DANILO TANGCOY clarified that he foiled to
locate the whe.reabouts of the accused for a.bout a month after July
05, 1991. It was almost two months after said date that he finally
located the whereabouts of the accused..
Accused Lrro CORPUZ testi.fi.ed in his behalf on direct
examination to the following =
Danilo Tangcoy is the brother-in-law of Antonio Bala.jadiEt who, just
like him, is a financing agent of Balajaclia. As such, they collect
payments of moneys lottneti by Balajadia to borrowers, who are base
employees. The interest is 9>~ - SoA'> goes to Balajadia, and 4% goes to
them as com.mission age11ts. lie has no business transaction with
Danilo Tangooy. He obtained a personal loan from BalAjadia in the
amount of P3,000;00. He signed the Receipt presented in evidence hY .
Tangcoy (Ex:hs. "A to "A-3, :in blank because Balajadia . would not
lend him. without signing a blank receipt. He did not sign the reoe:i:pt
on May 02, 1991 but in 1989 when he borrQwed money from
Balajadi.a the very first time. He identified his Counter-Affidavit (Exhs.
"1" to "1-d"), and bis Motion to Admit Additional Evidence (Exhs. "2"
to "'2-d").
On crossexa.mination, accused I..ITO CORPUZ stated :
Aside from being one of tb.e agents who collects interests for loans
obtained from Ms. Balajadi.a., he also recruits prospective borrowers
for the latter. He has recruited about twenty (20) borrowerst about
2/ 3 of whom were a.ble to pay. The loan amounts Varied from
P3,000.00 to PS,000.00 per each bottower. He gets 40.1& commission in
return, amounting to about P3,000.00 to P-4,000.00 per month. In all
these transactions, he deals only with Mr. Balajadia. He has nothing
to do with, much less does we owe Mr. Tangeoy the amount of
P98,000.00. The amount of P61,500.00 he mentioned in his countera:ffi.davit represohts the loan. obligations of the "Ba.so" employees which
were not paid, so he was made to answer for said amount. He did not
have an agreement. with Mr. Balajadia. that in the event of default in
the payment by his recruited borrowers, he would shoulder the
payments thereof. Only Mr. Balajadia. giws the money, and hi.S' job is
to collect the interest and principal payments. The loans a.re p4!:1yable
in June and Deceriiber al each year.\

..

i11

r1.'.d11ec1

hi: n:<:n1ii ..,d

nut to Mr. U;dHindirL

!(iJ'

1n1-:Pll/

IT\.'

"'<<1111in<1ii.>11,

:11, ..- 1 n\v1:r.c~

Mr. l-Ld.'l

~di.dt:d

lih :il1'. kno\.V1i lo

"

; 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~

L)J\l\1.1 i,\."> 'i')\.l~J~_1(.~()',g'. {l.:1iif~i'">(f tl.ii.i~. _

l!i' :t(1"' ;101 k11.mv 1i1f: rdit 1:;1:d !rnn~{,"F:li.Hi !H'.1Wi'''P i!w nu ':t''"d tz.t>l
(1/l L H<di'I i ,1d i it. i kdi:nf; Ii w~i r l.!'l'llli'-11'\cl ion \'c'l '" c<H ! ~" 1inrnn!111 i. Iv II 1d t w
11cc11sod 1,vw Hin11 pk~yi1H~. /\lil1'HH~h le rH:<:'V''.' ;1 llinddv c;,.!nn 1'1;;,.
~ii!~ !;.11;tltc~.r i.1.1 Lu\\'~ "fvlr . f~L-:1if~~t"-td.i(t, ~-:~~~ .l(1i'..\Jl l'tt~}:.~it .., td . .i;i~.~ld. !u. : ::~l~. 1._v:~ ~~';
jhe (f\,ino !n di) hi~; !J\'\l\ pr:Pwrwl !HtsiiH'.c'.~'" On MH\' O'/, !')'.ll, !,,
in:vf:'. dH: ncc1nwd PIOJFH).00 l,iy w;1v of iinuL nsitk !'rrnn !Iii fr111: !H
piH.:c~;; jm.\lehv wnd h P9f;, ,000 .00 lor sfllc on nv;q ri.-1 '.. 11 i; ! 1<1:..: /o111- ,d
paid 1ht) sep:Hdl!; !na11
PIO.,OOU . 00. Lul tJ;(;~ lldl jliiid 11(.\' H'ltH fl< i
o'.J

..

'

'

'

nr

the [l()fi.,000.00 tvo11 li of i \\ ll\'.

()ll cro;.;s-ex1u11i1HdinH, r.1\NlLO 'l!\NCiC'()\" ~;-ini1~d :.
iJe si11rf1;d \Vorki111.: 1vliit Mr. U;:d,1.i1Hlit1 i11 l(Jg.i. The t1ccns1d v,i'i~
nli 1;ady nn i1gcnl. ill 1hr i l1l1C of i\r1r. l inL1j1Hli1. /\.It I iO\q:;I i rv1r. l .\1d11,i;din
\,\.'.'\:;

<'l\.\.'{ll"t' or

ilicc PIO,f.l00.00 !on11.

li'iill':H

1in11, !lli' !llU:t<:y

\'vi\:01

..
,~ H :-!

nnd not Mr. I \tdajndia's.

The accu:-;.i)d te~~tificd. 01.1 snr n;hulkd lo !ht.: foJhn.\ing:

He dPnie<: rPccipt of the ii1ur ('!) pit:cc~{ of_iF1,c!r_'r' v<-du(~d rd pc1;:',.,(.l(HJ.1H!
frnn1 D<"1ni!n 'fangcny. In J~'tcf, lk: hu:~ 111:/i:r gorlt' i o tl1<: r.;1~;1r1<l n\
!Vli-ig~,n_v~;<'Y l)r1vn. i\t !1i'1:<.1:nl, ii. iin.', 111) nion; l\l:ni 11!)lig;1t;ni1 I;! ~v1r:
!).:1lni~Hlin. 1h; dn~;~.; 1ioi k1wv,; v.. i1:v !),111i!i1 Ti!ugcny lik:1! l!H: ;t,.i.111.'I
U\'.W

H~;t1i1 \"-;l liliJL

i~ d f~t:Jlioj'{d

n1k uf

1~vidc:11u: !11dL

idl

DI

he!'

1hiug\:~ h1.-.iH;...:,.

(di

;dfiniu1Livc 1.-;sliuioi1y i:~ ~-1tron1.~cr 1l1in1 111. ~1iv1~ in 1.1tl1c:1 \'ctoil:

boi11~~ ;;q11nl,'' snv~' ('1)r1n~ ..!t11i,: . . ''i!11~ li~:\ii11i.1ll\' ,if,;

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

Se<:tion :; nf !~uh: lJ I, Mc:\.v l(uk:s Hi i<vidc:JH:t;, 1o \Vil

"(dJ

Tlw! a pnrsou

tnkt.:~

hi:~ C(Hlet~rns;

(p}

onlinnrv

\r

'rltll1privt:llc1rn11'.'~nctin11~'

fair m><I rp,1ilnro

Cdft:'

h11v1:

nr

!Htil

i\

"

,.

: ' '

~.-,,~ "

.i 1

1;

Page - S -

! ' )

,,

F /\ -: (

:\

That the ordinary cause of business

J;ia~ ;bfftt:P. (~i~PW~d; .-~ (; r.1
(u) That a writing is truly d.ated;
(x)
That acquiescence resulted from a
; 1
. b~~~rf ~l) rn~I ~g B.CqWeSOed ID
11
. ' w~s conformable to the law or fa.ct;
'Ii 1 (~) P ~ii:tt' r 'things
have
happened
according to t11e ordiruu.-y cause of
na.ture and the Qr~.ary ~ah:its.' of '. , ') :, .
life; and
(ft) That the law has been obeyed."
The burden of "evi<l5"nce" (not burde.n of proof) to prove tl1e aforecited
diSJ,:>H~ftJ:>~e presum.ptions to the contrary rests on the shoulders of the
~ea~~~~ 'wi~ ~-~.~~~~~~ft?. quantum o~ evidence required to overco~e
such'filsputable 1p'.resttmptions. Certainly, the accused's naked demal
unsuppo1ted by other '*'8-~ev,i.rtenceto. buttress suohis-insuffi.ci~..nt
to over.come 1s1icli disputB.ble presumptions. The Court cannot help
but recall to mind the ptompt remark of an American jurist, Judge
Limpkin o~J.?ffor~ itt1i4~
o~~~ ,,of-~~;Y:: R~t-1;o:nc~,J Ga. 341) 349 : "I
1
would so8ner t.tllst
smallest slip of paper for truth than the
(q)

('

tlie

str?~ge~t ~,~ ~p~tt~ten~i .~~PP:~ f?\~~:tpW,4(~ ~~ eio~~mflt,/'j

. . 'As~~~:~~x:Eil1 m~1~r !h~ ~.~tiJtl?flY pf, ~r,ffiffl~~~Wf'~~:.~~a!, ~eg,u_y,

. 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 (~.

,iWhartoit's Crir.Di'.nat Evid~c~; '(11th :eci.)~ sec,.\885.

~i J
,,.~ ('~ C.'~ t,
, ,~ r.'' ( r
ti ~ i
'

,. I

["1,\

d >

,' ,..

?"~

.,.

'I

"

,', '; ." ~i

:"k ,

:,

,I

b :

',

r'

'1 l'

.'1~} ?

~/1' 1

:.:---

~,

,1

-:, \_,,'

i, (.~

'.'

"'~El'~~;m~ 1tttq~~ a.ocus~? L,~TO cq.~~~ GtHLtr '.beyond

reasonable doulit of t:pe fel:'{P.Y of 1f~tBi p,:q.4W- ,Afti~l(;' (31p.;.pa1~gr,aph1
, , on,e:(1), 1sti"f?-paragtaph (bl ofi:peX<~lsfld Peritll Code;

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

MOEll.iJL' ""1filliis1or.1.po1re!'ion~ i~1 ,i~ m.'i'Rf~tm ~'t~4A,tl.J}t'UfilMUM,

to~l/FO. u.RT-EEN''(14) '.Y1t)}FS... Atii>""!._..ro9ar~.
. M.Qm. s.. ,of_, Recltu:lion
Tenipo.'!1 iri its :.m~i~iniiiiie;p~~~~t\~~iu~.iJp i,cl~Dify private
.Im.

complam:~t''D#i{o\Tang~oy':~e ,'.~~"Q.nt o(. P98tOQO.p9

~s actual
1

da:m:ages;"B:nd!tb't,Ja'.yiilie b6st's' !bf' stilt.' . .

:

:.~'

f. }'

,, ',

SO

)'

,,

'

,,!'

\ . ''' /

~;.I

.,

,'

'1

.I'

'. .

,'

'

1'

,(

'

l ,1 . ~

OI~DERED.

City of Se.11. Fe1nar1do. Pa:mpauga, July 30, 2 004 \ ,

:,

: "'"

: .,:;

:nm1

I"

.''
i

;.::,',

, ,, ,
,'),
j . ~

'

\ ',',I

11

;:..

1 ,

."

[l: ,,1 ,

''..'.

'\.,

~/

1, ,

: ,.

:.'C""

'L~ , .'to A. D~o. JR

,'

,tndge~
. :.: ';

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

FIFTH DIVISION
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appel lee,

CA G.R. CR No. 28983

-versus-

LITO CORPUZ,
Accused-Appellant.
x-----------------------------~----------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Accused-appellant, by his undersigned counsel,
most respectfully moves for the reconsideration of the
oeci s ion promulgated by the Ho no rab le court of March
22, 2007. In support of this plea for reconsideration,
accused most respectfully states that:
1. The Decision of March 22, 2007 was received by
accused-appellant's then counsel
Atty.
Teddy c.
Macapa~al on April 3, 2007. The dispositive portion of
the said Decision is as follows:
"WHEREFORE, the instant appea 7 is DENIED.
The assailed Judgment dated July 24, 2004 or
RTC or San Fernando City (P) I Branch 46 is
Hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION on the
imposable penalty or 4 years and 2 months of
prision correcciona 7, as minimum, to 8 years
or prision mayor_, as maximum~ plus 1 year
for each add1tiona7 PIO, 000. 00 or a tota 7 of
7 years. The rest
the Decision stands.

or

SO ORDERED. "

2. with utmost due respect to the Honorable

court, accused-appellant r~spectfully contends that
there erroneous findings in the Dec1s1on led the
Honorable to arrive at a Judgment which affirmed, with
modi fi cation, the assailed oeci si on of the Honorable
Regional Trial Court of the city of San Fernando,
Pampanga, Branch 46 thereof, in criminal case No. 66591.

1'\,,,
'I.(,
It

' 2

of

3. The Honorable court did not appreciate that

the true and real transaction of accused-appellant was
that of loan and the lender was Mr. Antonio Balajadia,
with private complainant Danilo Tangcoy merely acting
as an agent/employee of said Mr. Balajadia. Mr.
Tangcoy's own testimony in open court revealed and
proved these facts, to wit:
II

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 x" (TSN of January 11, 1994, pp. 5-6)

A loan with interest was the true nature of
accused-appellant's
transaction.
His
understanding
with Mr. Bal aj adi a was that the money 1 ent to him
would in turn be distributed by him to others who were
in need of cash.

4. The fact that both

Tangcoy were known agents
latter's lending activities,
fact in ol ongapo city, was
himself in his testimony, to

accused-appe 11 ant and Mr.

of Mr. Balajadia in the
beside being a well-known
admitted by Mr. Tangcoy
wit:

" 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:

In what year did you work for Mr.

Ba lajad1a as financier at the casino?
I worked in 1989 with Mr. Ba 7ajadia.
And you came to know the accused
Corpuz also as an agent of financier
at the casino?
When I came here Mr. L ito Corpuz was
a 7ready there.
so, he was ahead of you?
Mr. L ito Corpuz is also an agent but
not a Financier.
Is it not a fact that Mr. Ba lajadia
wi 7 7 provide you a certain amount
for you to look for losers in the
casino and 7end them the money owned
by Mr. Balajadia?
Yes, sir.

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:

There is a document here which reads

RECEillED FROM DANILO TANGCOYn and
marked in evidence as Annex 1 dated
May 2, 1991, will you/lease te 7 7 us
ir you actually s1gne it?
Yes, sir.

Q:

will you tell the court if at the time

Q:

11

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:

Q:
A:

you signed this receipt, it: is the

same?
There are no ent:ries, sir.

And why did you sjgn a blank re_ceipt:?

He would not lend me wjthout: s1gn1ng
this receipt paper, sir.
There is a date entered 2 May 1991,
Is th1:s the date you signed this?
No, s1 r.
Could you actually remember the date?
1989, sir. The rirst t:ime I borrowed
money that was the first time 1n
1989, sir.

xx xn

(TSN dated July 8, 1993, p. 5)

. The fact was when accu~ed-appellant failed to

P~Y his loan to the real lender, Mr. Balajadia, thru
his agent/ emp 1oyee, caused t~e b1 ank signed document
~o be accomp 11 shed and made 1 t appear that pieces of
Jewelry were involved in the transaction. This was
m~de as the basis for the criminal comp.laint filed
with the olongapo Prosecutor's office.

I
I,

J,,."'

,,

P
'

'

'

' .~

'

",..

of

' r

I.,,

8. Accused-appe 11 ant respectful 1y invokes the

rule on strict application of penal statutes as well
as the equipoise rule in criminal cases. Thus,
"'If the in cu 7pa tory facts and
circumsta_nces are capab~e o( two or_ more
explanat1ons, one of wh1ch 1s cons1stent
with the innocence of the accused and the
other is consistent with his guilt, then
the evidence does not fulfil 7 the test of
moral certainty and is not sufficient to
support a conviction'. Furthermore, 'the
equipoise rule provides that where the
evidence in a criminal case is evenly
balanced, the constitutional presumption
of innocence should tjJt in favor of the
accused. (People vs. Lagmay, 306 SCRA
0

157 [1999)).

"It is well-known rule of legal

hermeneutics that penal or criminal laws
are strictly construed against the State
and liberally in favor of the accused.
This means that penal statutes cannot be
enlarged or extended by intendment,
implication or any equitable consideration.
x X X (Statutory Construction, Ruben Agpalo,
2003 ed., p. 289)
0

9. Lastly, accused-appellant respectfully seeks

relief from a judgment for his conviction on the basis
of false and trumped-up accusations against him. As
may be readily seen, the prosecution version is filled
with inconsistencies, improbabilities, unexplainable
gaps and highly irreconcilable contradictions. surely,
the Honorab 1 e court wi 11 not be swayed thereby in
convicting accused-appe 11 ant and depriving him of his
rightful freedom from the charge.
P R A Y E R

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

Accused-appellant further prays for such other

relief as may be deemed equitable in the premises.
olongapo city for Manila; April 16, 2007.

NINI

~uz

Counsel tor Acca~ed-Appellant

Mezzanine, Viacrucis Bldg.
Rizal Avenue, Olongapo City
PTR No.3643161 ;Olongapo;1-5-07
IBP No. 699635;01ongapo: 1-24-07
Roll No. 28763

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