G.R. No. 180016 , April 29, 2014.
Lito Corpuz v. People of the Philippines.

FACTS

Petitioner Lito Corpuz was charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on or about July 5, 1991, in Olongapo City, Corpuz received several pieces of jewelry valued at ₱98,000.00 from Danilo Tangcoy under the express obligation to remit the proceeds of the sale or return the items if unsold. Corpuz, with intent to defraud and through unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence, misappropriated or converted the jewelry or its proceeds to his own use, and despite demands, failed to return the items or remit the amount, causing damage to Tangcoy. Corpuz pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented Tangcoy, who testified that the agreement and handover of jewelry occurred on May 2, 1991, with a 60-day period to remit proceeds or return the items, evidenced by a receipt. Corpuz denied the transaction, claiming the receipt was for a different loan and that he and Tangcoy were both collecting agents for a financier. The Regional Trial Court found Corpuz guilty, a decision affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals. Corpuz elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of petitioner Lito Corpuz for Estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court held:
1. The Best Evidence Rule was not violated. Petitioner waived any objection to the admissibility of the photocopied receipt (Exhibit “A”) by failing to interpose a timely objection when it was identified, marked, testified upon, and formally offered in evidence.
2. The Information was not fatally defective. It sufficiently stated the statutory designation of the offense and the acts constituting it, complying with the Rules of Court. The gravamen of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) is the appropriation or conversion of property received to the prejudice of the owner; the precise date of commission is not a material ingredient of the offense. The variance between the date alleged (“on or about July 5, 1991”) and the date proven (May 2, 1991) is not fatal.
3. All elements of Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (a) petitioner received the jewelry in trust or under obligation to sell and remit proceeds or return the items; (b) he misappropriated, misapplied, or converted the jewelry or its proceeds; (c) such act was to the prejudice of the owner; and (d) demand was made. The receipt established the obligation, and Tangcoy’s testimony, deemed credible by the trial court, proved misappropriation and demand. Petitioner’s denial and alternative story were insufficient to overturn the positive identification and evidence of the prosecution.
4. The factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive and binding, absent any showing that they are devoid of support or glaringly erroneous. No such showing was made.
The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals was affirmed.