Exchange complaint with classmate (alphabetical so by pair)

and make counter-affidavit; person who made complaint

must act as prosecutor on the complaint affidavit that you
drafted and make resolution (as objective as possible;
doesn’t mean you file information; check defenses raised in
the counter to the complaint) in the drafting of the
resolution, if ruling is there is probable cause, you draft the
information (result of your investigation) whether it is to be
filed with the MTC or RTC. If resolution is against it, then no
corresponding complaint or information.
5pm Friday- give complaint affidavit to partner
5pm Tuesday- Submit counter affidavit
5pm Friday- Resolution

In proving the element of conversion or misappropriation, a

legal presumption of misappropriation arises when the
accused fails to deliver the proceeds of the sale or to return
the items to be sold and fails to give an account of their
whereabouts. (Legaspi v PP, G.R. No. 225799, October 15,
2018)
“The elements of qualified theft, punishable under Article
310, in relation to Articles 308 and 309, of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC), are as follows: (a) the taking of personal
property; (b) the said property belongs to another; (c) the
said taking be done with intent to gain; (d) it be done
without the owner’s consent; (e) it be accomplished without
the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of
force upon things; and (j) it be done under any of the
circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the RPC, i.e.,
with grave abuse of confidence” (People of the Philippines
vs. Delos Santos, GR 220685, Nov. 29, 2017, Ponente:
Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe).

Estafa
the rule is that demand is not an element of the felony or a
condition precedent to the filing of a criminal complaint for
estafa.29 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 accused of the money or property subject of the
Information.30 In a prosecution for estafa, demand is not
necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation or
conversion.31 However, failure to account upon demand, for
funds or property held in trust, is circumstantial evidence of
misappropriation.32 As found earlier, petitioner failed to
account for the money given to him in trust by private
 complainant. (Cosme Jr. v PP, G.R. No. 149753, November
27, 2006)
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). – Any person who shall
defraud another by any of the means mentioned
hereinbelow.

1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:

xxxx

(b) 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; x x x

The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as

follows: (a) that money, goods or other personal property is
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; (b) that there
be misappropriation or conversion of such money or
property by the offender or denial on his part of such
receipt; (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or
denial is to the prejudice of another; and (d) that there is a
demand made by the offended party on the offender.

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.
(Corpuz v PP, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014)

A person receiving