[G.R. No. 180016. April 29, 2014.

]
LITO CORPUZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

This is to resolve the Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of

the Rules of Court, dated November 5, 2007, of petitioner Lito Corpuz
(petitioner ), seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision dated March 22,
2007 and Resolution dated September 5, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA),
which affirmed with modification the Decision dated July 30,2004 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 46, San Fernando City, finding the
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under
Article 315, paragraph (1),sub-paragraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code.

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

ISSUES:
1. Can the court admit as evidence a photocopy of document without
violating the best evidence rule (only original documents, as a
general rule, is admissible as evidence)?
2. Is the date of occurrence of time material in estafa cases with
abuse of confidence?
3. What is the form of demand required in estafa with abuse of
confidence?
4. May a sole witness be considered credible?
RULINGS:

Can the court admit as evidence a photocopy of document without

violating the best evidence rule (only original documents, as a general
rule, is admissible as evidence)?
Yes. The established doctrine is that when a party failed to interpose
a timely objection to evidence at the time they were offered in
evidence, such objection shall be considered as waived.

Here, Corpuz never objected to the admissibility of the said evidence

at the time it was identified, marked and testified upon in court by
Tangcoy. Corpuz also failed to raise an objection in his Comment to the
prosecution’s formal offer of evidence and even admitted having signed
the said receipt.

Is the date of occurrence of time material in estafa cases with abuse

of confidence?
No.  It is true that the gravamen of the crime of estafa with abuse of
confidence under Article 315, paragraph 1, subparagraph (b) of the RPC
is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the
prejudice of the owner and that the time of occurrence is not a
material ingredient of the crime. Hence, the exclusion of the period
and the wrong date of the occurrence of the crime, as reflected in the
Information, do not make the latter fatally defective.
Further, the following satisfies the sufficiency of information:

1. The designation of the offense by the statute;

2. The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense;

3. The name of the offended party; and

4. The approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place
wherein the offense was committed.

The 4th element is satisfied. Even though the information indicates that

the time of offense was committed “on or about the 5 th of July 1991,”
such is not fatal to the prosecution’s cause considering that Section
11 of the same Rule requires a statement of the precise time only when
the same is a material ingredient of the offense.
What is the form of demand required in estafa with abuse of
confidence?
Note first that 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. Demand need not even be formal; it may be verbal. The specific
word “demand” need not even be used to show that it has indeed been
made upon the person charged, since even a mere query as to the
whereabouts of the money [in this case, property], would be tantamount
to a demand.

In Tubb v. People, where the complainant merely verbally inquired about

the money entrusted to the accused, the query was tantamount to a
demand.

May a sole witness be considered credible?

Yes.  Note first that settled is the rule that in assessing the
credibility of witnesses, SC 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.
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. 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.