Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JORGE SALAZAR v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 161178 2010-02-05	ADELA B. DELGADO v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
Ownership is not a necessary element of the crime of estafa.[5] In a string of cases, it has been held that the person prejudiced or the immediate victim of the fraud need not be the owner of the goods.[6] Thus, the allegation of Delgado that the injured party was Manuel Ang has no bearing in the resolution of this case. It was proved that in the transaction between Jaranilla and Delgado, Delgado would deliver USD 74,000 in exchange for PhP 2,029,820, and though Jaranilla lived up to his end of the bargain, Delgado failed to live up to hers. The allegation of Delgado that the PhP 2,029,820 did not belong to Jaranilla, had it been proved, would not matter.
	GR No. 173473 2008-12-17	PEOPLE v. BETH TEMPORADA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
People v. Romero,[38] De Carlos v. Court of Appeals,[39] Salazar v. People,[40] People v. Dinglasan[41] and, by analogy, People v. Dela Cruz[42] do not support the formula being proposed by the dissent.
	GR No. 166246 2008-04-30	ANTONIO NEPOMUCENO v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
On the other hand, respondent, thru the Office of the Solicitor General, in its Memorandum[16] filed on May 11, 2006, contends that the issues raised by petitioner are factual issues which are not proper in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure;[17] that contrary to petitioner's contention, the amount of P180,000 belonged to Lipa Lending and not to Rommel Villanueva since the amount was directly received by petitioner from Lipa Lending by way of a company check payable to petitioner himself;[18]and that the absence of demand does not bar petitioner's conviction for estafa as held in the case of Salazar v. People.[19]
	GR NO. 153460 2007-01-29	TONY TAN v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
The consummation of the crime of [estafa]… does not depend on the fact that a request for the return of the money is first made and refused in order that the author of the crime should comply with the obligation to return the sum misapplied. The appropriation or conversion of money received to the prejudice of the owner thereof [is] the sole essential [fact] which constitute the crime of [estafa], and thereupon the author thereof incurs the penalty imposed by the [RPC].[28]
	GR NO. 157781 2005-04-11	ROBERT CRISANTO D. LEE v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
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.[12]