Documents

315 (1&2) Asejo vs People.doc

Description
ASEJO vs. PEOPLE G.R. No. 157433 July 24, 2007 Facts: On April 30, 1998, petitioner Asejo with her husband went Vilma Castro to borrow PhP 100,000 to be used as show money to the bank to make it appear that the Asejos were inan!ially li uid# On $ay %, 1998, petitioner went ba!k to Castro&s house where she re!ei'ed the amount and si(ned a )rust *ndertakin( whi!h reads+ For and in consideration of the trust conveyed upon us, the undersigned her
Categories
Published
of 2
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  ASEJO vs. PEOPLEG.R. No. 157433 July 24, 2007Facts:  On April 30, 1998, petitioner Asejo with her husband went Vilma Castro to borrow PhP 100,000 to beused as show money to the bank to make it appear that the Asejos were inan!ially li uid# On $ay %, 1998, petitioner went ba!k to Castro&s house where she re!ei'ed the amount and si(ned a )rust *ndertakin( whi!h reads+   For and in consideration of the trust conveyed upon us, the undersigned herebyacknowledged the receipt of the amount of ONE HUNDED !HOU #ND $%&'','''('') %E O , %hilippine currency, from * ( +-*# F( .# !O said amount being e/tended and received by us not as loan or credit and without interest, nevertheless, we herebyundertake and commit to return the same amount to said * ( +-*# F( .# !O on or before 0uly &1, &221 without need of prior demand( n view of the foregoing, and as a token of gratitude for the trust and confidencereposed upon us, we, the undersigned, solidarily promise and warrant faithful complianceof the terms and conditions herein3above committed( hen the obli(ation be!ame due, Castro went to the spouses to demand payment but Castro ailed to!olle!t the money# Petitioner admitted that she re!ei'ed PhP 100,000 but !laimed that the amount was Castro&s down paymentor petitioner&s lot# -in!e she !ould no lon(er return the said amount, she alle(ed that she was !ompelled by Castroto push throu(h with the sale at the lower amount o PhP 1.0,000# )he a(reement, howe'er, did not materiali/e dueto the ore!losure o the property# Petitioner !laims that Castro iled the !omplaint or estaa or petitioner&s ailureto return the ull amount she re!ei'ed as down payment# )he trial !ourt ound a!!used rlinda Asejo (uilty beyond reasonable doubt as prin!ipal o the !rime o -)AA deined and penali/ed in Arti!le 31., subdi'ision no# 1, para(raph b, o the 2e'ised Penal Code, andsenten!es her to an indeterminate penalty o our years and two months o prision !orre!!ional as minimum to nineyears and si months o prision mayor as maimum, as well as orders her to pay to !omplainant the amount o P100,000#00 representin( the amount o the raud# )he CA airmed the petitioner&s !on'i!tion but modiied the penalty to an indeterminate penalty o our 456years and two 476 months o  prision correccional   as $$*$, to thirteen 4136 years and one 416 day o reclusiontemporal as $A:$*$# ssu!s: 1#s $o%&al o% '%(tt!) *!&a)* )!c!ssa%y () !sta$a u)*!% A%t.315 1#+ NO 2#s !t(t(o)!% As!-o u(lty o$ !sta$a+ /ESRul(): 1# NO )he demand under this kind o estaa need not be ormal or written# )he appellate !ourt obser'ed that thelaw is silent with re(ard to the orm o demand in estaa under Art# 31. 14b6, thus+ 4hen the law does not 5ualify, 4e should not 5ualify( hould a written demand benecessary, the law would have stated so( Otherwise, the word 6demand7 should be  interpreted in its general meaning as to include both written and oral demand( !hus, the failure of the prosecution to present a written demand as evidence is not fatal( n !ubb v( %eople, where the complainant merely verbally in5uired about the money entrusted tothe accused, we held that the 5uery was tantamount to a demand, thus8 9!:he law does not re5uire a demand as a condition precedent to the e/istence of thecrime of embe;;lement( t so happens only that failure to account, upon demand for fundsor property held in trust, is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation( !he same way,however, be established by other proof, such as that introduced in the case at bar( -imilarly in this !ase, there was a demand or petitioner to pay pri'ate !omplainant# )his was admitted by petitioner and the pri'ate !omplainant in their testimonies# Castro stated that she went to the house o petitioner inPan(asinan to demand the return o the money, while petitioner stated that Castro demanded the return o the ;down payment< be!ause alle(edly, the sale did not materiali/e# n both 'ersions, the a!t remains that demand was madeupon petitioner# 2# /ES Petitioner rlinda Asejo is ound GL/  o the !rime o estaa under Arti!le 31. 14b6 o the 2e'isedPenal Code# -he is senten!ed to suer an indeterminate penalty o imprisonment rom our 456 years and two 476months o  prisi<n correccional as $$*$ to thirteen 4136 years and one 416 day o reclusi<n temporal as$A:$*$# -he is ordered to pay !omplainant PhP 100,000 representin( the amount o the raud#)he elements o estaa with abuse o !oniden!e under Art# 31. 14b6 are+ 1# )hat the money, (oods or other personal property be re!ei'ed by the oender in trust, or on !ommission, or or administration, or under any other obli(ation in'ol'in( the duty tomake deli'ery o, or to return, the same= 7# )hat there be misappropriation or !on'ersion o su!h money or property by the oender, or denial on his part o su!h re!eipt= 3# )hat su!h misappropriation or !on'ersion or denial is to the prejudi!e o another= and 5# )hat there is a demand made by the oended party to the oender# All these elements are present in the !ase at bar# Petitioner admitted ha'in( re!ei'ed in trust the amount o PhP 100,000 rom Castro= the amount was misappropriated or !on'erted= su!h misappropriation or !on'ersion wasto the prejudi!e o Castro= and Castro demanded payment rom petitioner# Petitioner asserts that upon re!eipt o the amount, it was transerred to her and she was not prohibited to useor spend the same# )he 'ery same money !annot be returned but only the same amount# )his makes the transa!tiona loan and not a trust a(reement= thus, her liability is merely !i'il and not !riminal# Petitioner&s ar(uments are not meritorious# Art# 31. 14b6 epli!itly in!ludes money in its s!ope# )henature o money, that is, the ea!t bills and !oins re!ei'ed in trust !annot be returned, was already !onsidered by thelaw# As lon( as the money was re!ei'ed in trust, on !ommission, or administration, or under an obli(ation toreturn, ailure to a!!ount or it upon demand is punishable under Art# 31.14b6#
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x