Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROBERT CRISANTO D. LEE v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 167805 2008-11-14	ARNOLD STA. CATALINA v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
First, all the elements of estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code are present. The elements of estafa under said provision are: (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.[22]
	GR No. 150536 2008-09-17	BIENVENIDO GOMBA v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
[A]n act of using or disposing of another's property as if it were one's own or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To "misappropriate" a thing of value for one's own use or benefit [includes] not only conversion to one's personal advantage but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without a right.[11] The demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the accused to account for it are circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.[12] In this case, Gomba, as common area administrator, received the collections in trust for the association. The association made a demand upon Gomba to remit his collections. He failed to do so, despite several opportunities given to him. This was evidence that he misappropriated the money, bolstered by the fact that he merely submitted reports without the corresponding remittances on various occasions.[13]
	GR No. 171121 2008-08-26	GINA DIAZ Y JAUD v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Misappropriation or conversion may be proved by the prosecution by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.[45] The failure to account upon demand for funds or property held in trust is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.[46]
	GR NO. 156248 2007-08-28	MARISSA CENIZA-MANANTAN v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
(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. The elements[29]of estafa in the above provision 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;
	GR NO. 153460 2007-01-29	TONY TAN v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
Even so, the lower courts did find that demand was duly made on petitioner. As early as August 29, 1994, private complainant and his wife filed their complaint against petitioner and his wife. They alleged, among others, the demand to return the aforesaid amount. Petitioner and his wife were served summons and a copy of the complaint on September 7, 1994. Thereafter, they adduced their evidence before the trial court. This judicial demand was equally efficacious as, if not more effective than, the letters of demand of private complainant to petitioner before the latter was charged before the city prosecutor.[29] No specific type of proof is required to show that there was demand. Demand need not even be formal; it may be verbal.[30] 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 would be tantamount to a demand.[31]
	GR NO. 149753 2006-11-27	MIGUEL COSME v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
However, the RTC correctly found that petitioner has been properly charged with estafa as defined under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code. In Lee v. People[15] this Court held that the elements of Estafa by conversion or misappropriation as defined under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: (1) that money, goods, or other personal properties are 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; (2) that there is a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another.[16]