Higit Pa Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in

Parang Legal PH
A blog of a newly minted lawyer trying his best to be the ideal lawyer.

Friday, June 12, 2015

Corpuz vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180016,

April 29, 2014
REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; EVIDENCE; FORMAL OFFER; FAILURE TO
OBJECT; OBJECTION WAIVED:According to petitioner, the CA erred in affirming the ruling of
the trial court, admitting in evidence a receipt dated May 2, 1991 marked as Exhibit "A" and its
submarkings, although the same was merely a photocopy, thus, violating the best evidence rule.
However, the records show that petitioner never objected to the admissibility of the said evidence
at the time it was identified, marked and testified upon in court by private complainant. The CA
also correctly pointed out that petitioner 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. 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.

CRIMINAL LAW; ESTAFA; TIME OF OCCURRENCE NOT A MATERIAL INGREDIENT: Another

procedural issue raised is, as claimed by petitioner, the formally defective Information filed against
him. He contends that the Information does not contain the period when the pieces of jewelry were
supposed to be returned and that the date when the crime occurred was different from the one
testified to by private complainant. This argument is untenable. The CA did not err in finding that
the Information was substantially complete and in reiterating that objections as to the matters of
form and substance in the Information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. It is true that
the gravamen of the crime of estafa 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.

CRIMINAL LAW; ESTAFA; TYPE OF DEMAND: 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.
Blog Archive

CRIMINAL LAW; DUTY OF THE COURT TO APPLY LAW: Verily, the primordial duty of the Court ▼ 2015 (40)
is merely to apply the law in such a way that it shall not usurp legislative powers by judicial ► September (5)
legislation and that in the course of such application or construction, it should not make or
► August (3)
supervise legislation, or under the guise of interpretation, modify, revise, amend, distort, remodel,
or rewrite the law, or give the law a construction which is repugnant to its terms. The Court should ► July (4)
apply the law in a manner that would give effect to their letter and spirit, especially when the law is ▼ June (27)
clear as to its intent and purpose. Succinctly put, the Court should shy away from encroaching upon People vs. Gandawali, G.R. No. 193385,
the primary function of a co-equal branch of the Government; otherwise, this would lead to an December 1,...
inexcusable breach of the doctrine of separation of powers by means of judicial legislation. CERAFICA, vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 20...

Posted by Unknown at 3:09 PM IGLESIA FILIPINA INDEPENDIENTE,

vs. HEIRS OF BERNA...
Labels: criminal law, estafa, evidence, remedial law
People vs . Rollo, G.R. No. 211199, March
25, 2015...

No comments: BPI vs. St. Michael Medical Center, G.R.

No. 20546...
Araullo vs. Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287,
Post a Comment February ...
People vs. Dimachua, G.R. No. 191060,
February 2, ...
Enter your comment... Conspiracy
Elements of the Crime of Murder
UMALI vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 203974...

Comment as: Google Account Abbott Laboratories vs. Alcaraz, G.R. No.
192571, ...
Disini vs. The Secretary of Justice, G.R.
Publish Preview No. 2033...
SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD NG
BAGUIO CITY vs. JADEWELL...
Newer Post Home Older Post
Mirant (Philippines) Corporation, et al.
vs. Caro,...
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Civil Service Commission vs. Cortez, G.R.
No. 2001...
Shu vs. Dee, G.R. No. 182
Sunga vs. Virjen Shipping Corporation,
G.R. No. 19...
Wolfson vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No. L-
22401, August ...
Syllabus rather than digests
People vs. Barcela, G.R. No. 208760,
April 23, 201...
Skunac Corporation vs. Sylianteng, G.R.
No. 205879...
Francisco vs. Rojas, G.R. No. 167120,
April 23, 20...
Eserjose vs. Allied Banking Corporation,
G.R. No. ...
Villagracia vs. Fifth (5th) Shari'a District
Court...
Bihag vs. Bathan, G.R. No. 181949, April
23, 2014
Cajipe vs. People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 203...
Corpuz vs. People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 180...

► May (1)

► 2014 (2)
► 2013 (68)

Topics/Labels

accident (1)
acknowledgment (1)
administrative code (1)
administrative law (5)
adoption (2)
adultery (3)
alibi (1)
alien (1)
annulment of judgment (1)
assignment after death (1)
bangko sentral ng pilipinas (2)
bigamous marriage (1)
bill of rights (8)
BP 22 (1)
bsp (2)
burden of proof (1)
business losses (1)
buy-bust money (1)
cabanatuan city (1)
capacity to inherit (1)
capacity to succeed (1)
case digest (3)
certification requirements (1)
certiorari under Rule 45 (1)
chain of custody (1)
chattel mortgage (1)
civil law (56)
civil procedure (1)
COC (1)
collusion (2)
commission on elections (1)
common law spouse (1)
concubinage (1)
condonation (1)
conjugal properties (1)
consent (3)
conspiracy (2)
constitutional law (4)
corporation law (3)
criminal law (10)
cybercrime (2)
dangerous drugs act of 2002 (1)
DAP (1)
decree of registration of lands (1)
direct proof (1)
distribution (1)
DNA testing (1)
doctrine of finality of judgment (1)
doctrine of stare decisis (1)
documentary stamp tax (1)
donation (1)
donation propter nuptias (4)
double sale (1)
doubts in favor of labor (1)
drug test (1)
drugs (1)
due process (1)
duplicate original (1)
earnest money (1)
easement (1)
effect of reversal of executed jdugment (1)
ejectment (1)
elements (1)
elements of rape (1)
estafa (1)
estranged spouse (1)
evidence (4)
evident premeditation (1)
factual findings (1)
fideicommissary substitution (2)
filiation (7)
finality of cadastral and land registration
proceedings (1)
findings of secretary of justice (1)
findings of trial court (1)
Fines (1)
forgiveness (1)
form (1)
freedom of expression (1)
grave abuse of discretion (1)
illegal contracts (1)
illegitimate children (1)
immovable properties (2)
immovable property (2)
immovables (1)
implied trust (1)
inheritance (2)
injunction (1)
innocent purchaser for value (1)
internet law (1)
intrinsic validity (1)
joint obligation to support (1)
jokes (3)
judgment (2)
judicial review (1)
Judicial separation of property (1)
jurisdiction (1)
labor law (4)
laches (1)
land registration (1)
land titles and deeds (1)
legal separation (3)
legal wife (1)
legitimacy (5)
liability of corporate officers (1)
libel (3)
Libel is not constitutionally protected:
Fermin vs. People (1)
liberality of courts (1)
machineries (1)
management prerogatives (1)
marriage (2)
merger (1)
mortgages (1)
murder (3)
mutual consent (1)
nature of action (1)
negligence of lawyer (1)
nepotism (1)
nepotism exception (1)
NLRC (1)
no standard for of behavior (1)
notice (1)
notice and hearing (1)
nueva ecija (1)
online libel (1)
ownership (3)
ownership of lands (2)
pardon (1)
parties (1)
paternity (3)
penalties (1)
performance evaluation (1)
personal properties (1)
personal property (1)
political law (14)
possession (2)
prescription (1)
preterition (1)
probable cause (1)
probationary employee (1)
proof (1)
public domain (2)
public instrument (1)
purchaser in good faith (1)
questions of law (1)
quitclaims (1)
rape (2)
rape victim (1)
real properties (1)
recall or quashal of writ of execution (1)
reduction (1)
registered land (1)
registration (2)
rehabilitation (1)
relatives (1)
remedial law (11)
republic act (1)
rescission (1)
rights and obligations of spouses (3)
rule 65 (1)
sale (1)
sale of real property (1)
separate personality (1)
shari'a courts (1)
signature (1)
sss benefits (1)
stepmother (1)
substitution of heirs (1)
succession (8)
support (1)
sworn statement (1)
tax declaration (1)
taxation (1)
termination (2)
testimony (1)
treachery (1)
ultravires acts (1)
under age (1)
upgrading to a city (1)
victim must be identifiable (1)
waiver (1)
witness (1)

Popular Posts

Ivler vs. San Pedro G.R. No. 172716

November 17, 2010
Bill of Rights Ivler vs. San Pedro G.R. No.
172716 November 17, 2010 FACTS:
Following a vehicular collision in August
2004, p...

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. COMELEC

BILL OF RIGHTS Ang Ladlad LGBT Party
vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 190582 April 8,
2010 FACTS: Petitioner is an
organization c...

Araullo vs. Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287,

February 3, 2015
POLITICAL LAW; POWER OF THE
SUPREME COURT; JUDICIAL REVIEW.
We have already said that the Legislature
under our form of government is assig...

Espina vs. Zamora, Jr., 631 SCRA 17(2010)

Judicial Review; Locus Standi; Words and
Phrases; Legal standing or locus standi
refers to the right of a party to come to a
court of justic...

Disini vs. The Secretary of Justice, G.R. No.

203335, April 22, 2014
POLITICAL LAW; CONGRESS
EXCLUSIVELY HAS THE POWER TO FIX
THE PENALTIES. The Court had ample
opportunity to consider the proposition that
S...

Corpuz vs. People of the Philippines, G.R.

No. 180016, April 29, 2014
REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE; EVIDENCE; FORMAL
OFFER; FAILURE TO OBJECT;
OBJECTION WAIVED:According to
petitioner, the CA erred in affi...

Alejandro Estrada vs. Soledad Escritor A.M.

No. P-02-1651 June 22, 2006
BILL OF RIGHTS Alejandro Estrada vs.
Soledad Escritor A.M. No. P-02-1651 June
22, 2006 FACTS: An administrative
compl...

MIAA VS. CITY OF PASAY

MIAA VS. CITY OF PASAY April 02, 2009
G.R. No. 163072 FACTS: Petitioner Manila
International Airport Authority (MIAA)
operate...

UMALI vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,

G.R. No. 203974, April 22, 2014
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SUPREME LAW
OF THE LAND; Hornbook doctrine is that
neither the legislative, the executive, nor the
judiciary has the po...

Nazareno vs. CA
Nazareno vs. CA Facts: The husband and
wife, in order to avoid paying estate tax,
while they are alive, executed several Deeds
of S...

Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.