Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DULCE PAMINTUAN v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 174113 2016-01-13	PAZ CHENG Y CHU v. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The elements of Estafa under this provision are as follows: (1) the offender's receipt of money, goods, or other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same; (2) misappropriation or conversion by the offender of the money or property received, or denial of receipt of the money or property; (3) the misappropriation, conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) demand by the offended party that the offender return the money or property received.[17] In the case of Pamintuan v. People,[18] the Court had the opportunity to elucidate further on the essence of the aforesaid crime, as well as the proof needed to sustain a conviction for the same, to wit: The essence of this kind of [E]stafa is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the entity to whom a return should be made. The words "convert" and "misappropriate" connote the 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 for one's own use includes not only conversion to one's personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without right. In proving the element of conversion or misappropriation, a legal presumption of misappropriation arises when the accused fails to deliver the proceeds of the sale or to return the items to be sold and fails to give an account of their whereabouts.[19] (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 205144 2014-11-26	MARGIE BALERTA v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
That there be demand for the return of the property. The essence of this kind of estafa is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the entity to whom a return should be made. The words "convert" and "misappropriate" connote the 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 for one's own use includes not only conversion to one's personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without right. In proving the element of conversion or misappropriation, a legal presumption of misappropriation arises when the accused fails to deliver the proceeds of the sale or to return the items to be sold and fails to give an account of their whereabouts.[39]
	GR No. 204755 2014-09-17	SOLEDAD TRIA v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
The elements of estafa under this provision are: (1) that the money, good 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; (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) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender.[24]
	GR No. 170964 2012-03-07	ELSA MACANDOG MAGTIRA v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
The decisive factor in determining the criminal and civil liability for the crime of estafa depends on the value of the thing or the amount defrauded.[21] With respect to the civil aspect of the case, the petitioner filed a manifestation[22] which showed the satisfaction of her civil monetary liability with six (6) out of the seven (7) private complainants.