Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JORGE SALAZAR v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 173905 2010-04-23	ANTHONY L. NG v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
Based on the definition above, the essential elements of Estafa are: (1) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return it; (2) that there be 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; and (4) there is demand by the offended party to the offender.[12]
	GR No. 165411 2009-06-18	WILMA TABANIAG v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
The elements of estafa under Article 315, par. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code are the following: (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) there is demand by the offended party to the offender.[30]
	GR No. 174405 2008-08-26	FLORA BAUTISTA v. FELICIDAD CASTILLO MERCADO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
(4) the offended party demands that the offender return the money or property.[8] Petitioner wants this Court to weigh the credibility of the prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis the defense witnesses. It has often been said, however, that the credibility of witnesses is a matter best examined by, and left to, the trial courts.[9] When the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court, the general rule applies.[10] This Court will not consider factual issues and evidentiary matters already passed upon. The petitioner raises the same issues she brought before the appellate court, which gave credence to the findings and decision of the trial court.
	GR NO. 150443 2006-01-20	SYLVIA PEREZ v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
(4) the offended party demands that the offender return the money or property.[11] In this case, Perez asserts that the prosecution failed to prove the first element of estafa under paragraph 1(b) of Article 315. Perez insists that the prosecution has no proof that she received money from the salesmen.