1.G.R. No.

172604 : August 17, 2010

(Formerly G.R. Nos. 155345-47)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. VENANCIO ROXAS y ARGUELLES, 2. G.R. No. 224562, September 18, 2019
EXCEL GURRO Y MAGA, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
G.R. NO. 237216
Facts: On January 12, 1994, around 3:00 p.m., Agnes Guirindola, while cruising along Quezon City was suddenly PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLE, v. EXCEL GURRO Y MAGA, WENNIE INTING, JJ. IDIAN Y
flagged down by Venancio Roxas wearing a PNP reflectorized vest. Roxas told her that the street had been made JAMINDANG AND JOEL JAMINDANG Y ZOSA, ACCUSED, WENNIE IDIAN Y JAMINDANG AND EXCEL GURRO Y
a one-way street and asked for her license. Roxas entered he car of Agnes and told her that she could drop him MAGA. ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
off at Mother Ignacia. Roxas poked a gun at Agnes and told her that he needed her car. Roberto Gungo also
entered the car. Agnes was taken to Batangas, while on the car she asked the accused if she could relieve herself,
Facts: On August 2, 2008, at Malanday, Marikina City the accused kidnapped and detained victim, AAA, AN 8-
after Agnes relieved herself she was shot by Roxas on the neck and on her right cheek. Agnes was brought to the
YEAR- OLD MINOR, AGAINST HER WILL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTORTING RANSOM FROM THE VICTIM AND THE
hospital by a family.
LATTER'S FAMILY AND THEREAFTER, DEMANDED THE AMOUNT OF Php 3,000,000.00, and actually received the
Roxas and Santiago was found guilty of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with frustrated murder, amount of Php186,000.00 ransom money in exchange for AAA's life and liberty. While in captivity victim AAA was
carnapping and theft which was affirmed by the CA murdered by Joel Zosa while in detention.

Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE Joel stated that Wennie had nothing to do with the crime, and that he merely used Excel to receive the ransom
OFFENSES OF (1) KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION WITH FRUSTRATED MURDER, (2) CARNAPPING, money.
AND (3) THEFT.
RTC convicted Joel and Wennie of Kidnapping with Homicide and Excel as an accomplice which was affirmed by
Ruling: No, the trial court did not err in convicting appellant of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal the CA.
detention. The evidence likewise reveal, undoubtedly, the commission of frustrated murder as qualified by the
Issue: Whether or not the prosecution sufficiently established the guilt of Wennie and Excel beyond reasonable
circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. The medical findings show that had it not been due to
doubt.
the timely and proper medical attention given to the victim, the gunshot wound sustained by the victim would
have been fatal. Ruling: Yes, In the case at bar, the prosecution presented credible and sufficient pieces of circumstantial
evidence which, when taken together, prove that Wennie conspired with Joel. It is all too apparent that Wennie's
Roxas is also guilty of violation of the Anti-Carnapping Law. It cannot be denied that the 1993 Nissan Sentra was
suspicious acts show her complicity to the crime. To begin with, she was the last person seen with AAA. She and
taken from Agnes without her consent and by means of force or intimidation, considering that he and his co-
AAA went outside of the house, but the former returned home alone. AAA went missing thereafter.
accused alternately poked a gun at Agnes. After shooting her, appellant also flee with the subject vehicle which
shows his intent to gain. There was no showing that Excel actually cooperated or assisted in kidnapping AAA and detaining the latter. At
best, Excel's participation in the incident was limited to acts committed after the abduction was already
We likewise agree that Roxas is only guilty of theft and not robbery. While it was proven beyond reasonable
consummated. Particularly, Excel retrieved the ransom money from Metrobank and, thereafter, immediately
doubt that appellant took Agnes' personal things, there was no evidence, however, that the taking was
forwarded the same to Joel. There is no doubt that Excel was aware of the crime Joel committed.
employed with the use of force, violation and intimidation.
Wennie is guilty as Joel's co-conspirator in the special complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide
while Excel as an accessory to the crime
3. G.R. No. 226836, December 05, 2018 4. G.R. No. 226400, January 24, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BONG CHAN AND ELMO CHAN, Accused-Appellants. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSELITO BRINGCULA Y FERNANDEZ, Accused-Appellant
G.R. No. 226400, January 24, 2018

FACTS: At around 9:00p.m. of September 27, 2004, the victim, Reynard P. Camba, went to Ernesto's house to FACTS: On the night of May 2, 2011, private complainant AAA was sleeping in her house when she was
visit his (victim's) son. The victim stayed at Ernesto's house and told Ernesto that the victim had a quarrel with awakened by a man wearing a mask who touched her shoulder and poked a firearm at her neck. The man told
Melrose and her husband because Melrose refused to sell the victim liquor from her store and that Melrose's her that it was a robbery and that she should keep quiet or else he would kill her. She was able to recognize the
father, appellant Elmo, threatened to kill the victim. Upon hearing this, Ernesto told the victim that it would be voice of the man to be that of appellant Bringcula. Then, she was ordered to lie face down and was hogtied using
better for the latter to stay the night but the victim refused and left Ernesto's house. Ernesto followed the victim a shoelace. The appellant took AAA's two bracelets and wedding ring, and asked her where her money was. AAA
and when the victim reached Melrose's house, Ernesto saw appellants hit the victim with bamboo sticks on the pointed at her bag where she placed her money which the appellant also took.
neck and kept hitting him even after he became unconscious and fell to the ground face down. The appellants
went inside the yard and came back carrying a sack. The appellants placed the victim, who was then unconscious, Appellant, thereafter, made AAA lie on her back and pulled her pajama and underwear. He also removed his own
inside the sack and carried him inside their yard. clothing including his mask. Appellant proceeded to lick AAA's vagina, kissed her neck, laid on top of her and
inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA was unable to cry for help because appellant threatened to kill her if she
The appellants, on the other hand, negate such testimony through alibis and denials. does. After satisfying his lust, appellant dressed up and took AAA's necklace and two (2) cellular phones. When
appellant left, AAA awakened her niece and told her to shout for help but when some neighbors arrived she
The RTC rendered a decision finding appellants guilty of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention as
opted not to immediately disclose the culprit’s identity. Later in the morning, AAA went to the police station to
defined and penalized under Article 267 of the RPC. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
report the incident and submitted herself for a medical examination. Appellant denied the allegations and
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellants are guilty of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention as defined and interposed alibi as a defense. The RTC found appellant guilty of the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape
penalized under Article 267 of the RPC. penalized under Art. 294 of the RPC. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC and ruled that the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling must be appreciated.
HELD: YES. The prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant is guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with rape.
All the elements of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention are present in this case. First, appellants
are both private individuals. Second, the fact that they kidnapped the victim was clearly established by the HELD: YES. The RTC and the CA were correct in ruling that the elements of robbery with rape are present in this
testimony of the prosecution's eyewitness, Ernesto. Third, appellants' act of kidnapping was illegal. Lastly, the case. As ruled by the CA:
victim has been detained for more than three days. In fact, until now, the victim has not returned, nor his body
As to the asportation by appellant of private complainant's personal properties constituting the first three (3)
been found.
elements of the crime, the Court find the same sufficiently established by the evidence on records. The
The element of restraint was established as the prosecution clearly established actual confinement, detention, or prosecution was able to prove that appellant entered the house of private complainant and took her money,
restraint of the victim. some pieces of jewelry and cellphones by means of violence and intimidation. Appellant barged into the house of
the victim armed with a weapon, tied her down to immobilize her, and robbed her of some personal belongings.
Actual confinement, detention, and restraint of the victim is the primary element of the crime of kidnapping. Private complainant saw the perpetrator leaving her house carrying the pieces of jewelry and other items taken
from her.
In this case, the acts of appellants of hitting the victim until he was unconscious, of putting him inside the sack,
and of carrying him to their yard showed their intention to immobilize the victim and deprive him of his liberty. Having established that the personal properties of the [victim were] unlawfully taken by the appellant, intent to
Thus, contrary to the claim of appellants, the element of restraint was clearly established. As aptly pointed out gain was sufficiently proven.x x xThe prosecution was likewise able to establish that appellant raped private
by the CA, "[a]ctual restraint of the victim was evident from the moment appellants clubbed the victim on the complaint on the occasion of the robbery. Private complainant's account on what appellant did to her was
neck and other parts of his body and thereafter placed him inside a sack. Not only was [the victim's] freedom of straightforward, candid and carries a disturbing ring of sordid truth. She vividly recounted how appellant forced
movement restricted, he was immobilized because the blows rendered him unconscious. Putting him inside the himself on her and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her. x x x
sack completely rendered the victim powerless to resist."
The CA is also correct in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of dwelling. In this particular case, robbery
with violence was committed in the house of the victim without provocation on her part. In robbery with
violence and intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating because in this class of robbery, the crime may Case #6 Jose “Pepito” Timoner vs People of the Philippines
be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's house. GR No. 62050 November 25, 1983

Facts: Jose Timoner was convicted by the Municipal Court of Daet with the crime of Grave Coercion, as
Case #5 GR No. 181626 May 30, 2011 penalized under Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code, because of the complaint by Pascual Dayaon, Lourdes
Santiago Paera vs People of the Philippines Rabustillos and others. Timoner, then Mayor of Daet, together with two uniformed policemen and six laborers
were acting on the recommendation of Dra. Allegre, the Municipal Health Officer, to close among other
structures that were along the sidewalk, the barbershop of Dayaon and store of Rabustillos. Timoner filed a
Facts:Santiago, the punong barangay of Bacong Negros Oriental, allocated the limited distribution of communal complaint in the CFI of Camarines Norte against Rebustillos and others for judicial abatement of their stalls,
water to his constituents. The tank was located at the property of Vicente Darong. Despite the scheme, alleged that the stalls constituted public nuisances. Petitioner claimed that their actions was done in abatement
Indalencio, son of Vicente, continued drawing water from the tank. Later on, Paera reminded Indalencio of the of a public nuisance and, therefore, under lawful authority.
water scheme and cut the latter’s access.
Issue: WON Timoner committed Grave Coercion.
Petitioner picked up his bolo charged towards Indalencio shouting “patyon tikaw!” (I will kill you). The latter ran
for safety passing his wife Diosetea and father threatening to also kill and hurt both them. According to Paera, he Ruling: No. As the then Mayor of the City, Timoner had the authority to act on behalf of the recommendation
was forced to take a defensive stance since it was Indalecio who threatened him with a bolo, inquiring why his and his constituents’ right to public order and safety, and that such stalls along the sidewalk affected the
water supply connection was cut. community and general public, as it is in a public place, and was annoying to all who come within its sphere.
However, the Supreme Court contended that the barbershop did constitute a public nuisance, as defined under
Article 694 and 695 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Hence, the petitioner did not commit Grave Coercion as
the elements of Article 286 requiring that he acted under the authority of law is absent.
Issue:WON Santiago Paera is guilty of grave threats

Ruling:Yes. Santiago is liable for 3 counts of Grave Threats under Article 282. Any person who shall threaten
another with the infliction upon the person of the latter or his family of any wrong amounting to a crime will be
liable for Art 282. The felony was consummated as soon as the threats come to the knowledge of the person
threatened.

It is clear that Santiago’s threat to kill Indalecio and Diosetea and crack open Vicente’s skull are wrongs on the
person amounting to at least homicide and serious physical injuries punishable under the RPC. The threat was
consummated having spoken the threats at different points in time to the 3 individuals, albeit in rapid
succession, making Santiago incur 3 separate criminal liabilities because not having known in advance of the
Darongs’ presence near the water tank at the time in question, Santiago could not have formed any intent to
threaten any of them until he came across each of them.
Case 7 GR No. 121175, November 4, 1998

PP vs Marilyn Rafael Villamar,

Case 8 GR No. 228000, July 10, 2019

Facts:Villamar went to the house of the complainant cortez and inquired if the PP vs. Ronald Palema, et.al.,
later was interested in adopting his daughter. Cortez, unable to refuse, he Facts: At around 11:00 p.m. on November 10, 2007, Enicasio Depante (Enicasio), his
accepted the offer and immediately prepared a “sinumpaang salasay” to common-law spouse, his son Erickson Depante (Erickson), and his stepdaughter Jamie
formalized the adoption. Unfortunately, villamar chaged his mind and tried to Rose Baya (Jamie) were sitting on the benches at the Calamba Town Plaza. That was
take her daughter, and cortez vehementy refused. According to cortez. Villamar when three (3) men, who were later identified as Palema, Palmea, and Manzanero,
brandished a pair of scissors to cortez, and with fear of the crowed assembled approached Enicasio. Suddenly, Palmea threw a punch at Enicasio in an attempt to
outside the house she use cortez as a “human shield” to keep the crowd at bay. grab his phone. Palema simultaneously pulled out a knife and tried to stab him in the
The trial court convicted villamar for serious illegal detention and less serious abdomen, but was warded off by Jamie, making him drop his knife. Once he retrieved
physical injuries. his knife, Palema stabbed Enicasio on the right thigh, causing him to fall on the
ground. Then, Grengia and Saldua arrived at the scene and joined in beating Enicasio.
Seated on the bench near Enicasio, Erickson stood and tried to help his father, but
Ladra stopped him. When he resisted, Ladra attempted to stab him, but he was able
Issue: WON trial court erred in convincing Villamar with serious illegal detention
to evade the attack and immediately look for a weapon. Upon reaching his father,
and less serious physical injuries. however, he saw that Enicasio had already collapsed from the stab wounds. Erickson
brought his father to the Calamba Medical Center, but he later died from blood loss.

Ruling: YES. The act merely constituted grave coercion, as provided in article Meanwhile, Saldua, Palema, Palmea, and Grengia denied the accusations
286 of the revised penal code. The crime of grave coercion has three elements : against them. They insisted that while all of them were at the Plaza during the
(1) that any person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited incident, they were not there as a group, but with different people. They maintained
by law (2) that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, either by that the police officers mistook them for the men who attacked Enicasio. adra, for his
material force or such a display of it as would produce intimidation and, part, changed his plea to guilty after the prosecution had presented its evidence. The
consequently, control over the will of the offended party (3) that the person who Regional Trial Court then directed him to take the witness stand to answer some
restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so; in other words, that clarificatory questions.Ladra testified that he was with Palema, Palmea, Saldua,
the restrain is not made under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful Marqueses, and Manzanero at the night of the incident. All of them drunk, they
right decided to eat gruel at the Plaza. Later, Palema's girlfriend approached them and
complained that a man in a red shirt had acted indecently toward her.Believing that
the man was Enicasio, the group attacked and mugged him. When he saw Enicasio
fighting back, he took Marqueses' knife and stabbed Enicasio twice.

Issue: WON. The accused is guilty of robbery with homicide punished under Article
294 of the RPC

Ruling: YES. The act merely constituted robbery with homicide punished under
Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code he elements of which are: (1) intent to gain; (2)
unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another; and (3) violence against or
intimidation of any person. the Regional Trial Court found that the four (4) men
conspired in committing the crime charged. It brushed aside their defense of denial
and decreed that they failed to offer any evidence showing that they performed an
overt act that would have prevented the assault from happening.
CASE # 9 G.R. No. 238457 SEPTEMBER 18, 2019
People of the Philippines vs Jojo Bacyaan, Ronnie Fernandez and Ryan
Guevarra

Facts: Apellants were charged with the crimes of robbery with homicide and CASE 10 G.R. No. 235739, JULY 22, 2019
serious illegal detention for conspiring to rob a bus in Quezon City, by pretending Edwin Del Rosario vs People of the Philippines
to be passengers and then subsequently brought out their hidden illegal firearms
and declared a hold-up, divesting a lot of cash, cellphones and other personal
Facts: Edwin Del Rosario and Roxan Cansiancio were charged with Robbery for conspiring in the
belongings. Also, by reason of the robbery and with intent to kill, evident
stealing of Charlotte Casiano's P18,000 worth of Italian gold necklace. The former pleaded not guilty
premeditation and abuse of superior strength, the accused employed violence to
but Roxan, then, plea-bargained the charge. Thus, to Del Rosario's case trial ensued. The prosecution
the driver, Lauro Santos, and Renato Veloso, a passenger, resulting to the victims'
argues that the accused together with the complainant sat across each other inside the jeepney and
death. They also, on the same day, conspired in detaining Sampaguita Cortuna
and Margie Villatima in a car with threats to kill the latter, in order to successfully she allegedly saw Edwin giving signal to Roxan to snatch the necklace and immediately disembark.
escape the police who were pursuing them right after the robbing of the bus. The Edwin's defense is an alibi where he presented four witnesses who attest to the time where they saw
apellants raised their alibis but due to positive identification by the witnesses' him, which coincide with the time of the crime. His defense further alleges that the prosecution relies
testimonies, the RTC found them guilty. The CA, affirmed the conviction but on the fact that Charlotte identified Roxan's companion as a bald person. The RTC and CA found him
dismissed the serious illegal detention case. guilty under Article 294 of the RPC.

Issue: Whether or not the accused are guilty of robbery with homicide. Issue: Whether or not Del Rosario is guilty of robbery or theft.

Ruling: Yes, because all elements of Article 294 paragraph 1 are present. (1) the Ruling: The Court finds Del Rosario guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of theft because all
taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain or animus elements of the crime were present wherein he took the personal property which belongs to another
lucrandi; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on person without his consent with intent to gain, and as a distinguishing element, Del Rosario and
the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its Roxan did not employ violence or intidimidation against persons or force upon things. Such element
generic sense, was committed. By divulging into the witnesses' testimonies, it can
was absent when Charlotte and her sister testified that Roxan immediately alighted from the jeepney
be inferred that the accused's original intention was to rob the passengers and
that it is only in the occasion of the robbery that homicide was committed. after snatching the gold necklace, and that there is no violence enforced upon either of the siblings.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that in order to prove violence, the victims need to sustain less serious
or slight physical injuries.
CASE # 11 G.R. No. 209137, 01 July 2015 2. No. there was no illegal search made upon Celedonio.
Celedonio vs People
Topic: Legal Searches; Circumstantial Evidence
When the police officers asked where the stolen items were, they merely made a general
inquiry, and not a search, as part of their follow-up operation. Records did not show that
FACTS: This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by the police officers even had the slightest hint that the stolen items were in Celecdonio’s
Eduardo Celedonio. April 2007, in Navotas, with intent to gain and by means of force upon motorcycle compartment.
things, and without the consent of the owner, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously enter the house of the herein complainant by destroying the backdoor of said Neither was there are showing that the police officers frisked Celedonio or rummaged over
house, and once inside, take, rob and carry away things owned and belonging to his motorcycle. There was no showing either of any force or intimidation on the part of the
CARMENCITA amounting to Php223, 000.00 police officers when they made the inquiry. Celedonio himself voluntarily opened his
On the evening of April 21, 2007, a certain Marquez witnessed the robbery perpetrated in motorcycle compartment.
the house of Carmencita De Guzman while she was away to attend to the wake of her
Worse, when he was asked if the items where the stolen ones, he actually confirmed it.
deceased husband. No one was left in the house. Marquez, whose house was opposite the
The police officers, therefore, were left without any recourse but to take him into custody
house of De Guzman and Celedonio, identified Celedonio as the culprit. Upon learning of
for further investigation. At that instance, the police officers had probable cause that he
the incident, De Guzman reported it to the police and requested that Celedonio be
could be the culprit of the robbery. He did not have any explanation as to how he got hold
investigated for possibly having committed the crime, based on the account of Marquez.
of the items. Moreover, taking into consideration that the stolen items were in a moving
A follow-up operation was conducted accompanied by Marquez to survey the area for vehicle, the police has to immediately act on it.
possible identification and apprehension of the suspect. Marquez pointed that Celedonio
was the man in the motorcycle.

Police officer informed Celedonio of a complaint for robbery against him. Celedonio still
remained silent and just bowed his head. Police officer asked him, “Where are the stolen
items?” Celedonio then alighted from his motorcycle and opened its compartment where
the police officer saw of the stolen items. Celedonio was arrested and was informed of his
constitutional rights.

RTC found him guilty of robbery with force upon things. The appeal in CA was also denied.

ISSUES: 1. WON the petitioner’s guilt could be proven by circumstantial evidence

2.WON the search conducted on the petitioner was illegal, rendering the articles
recovered inadmissible.
RULING: 1. Yes. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

a. There is more than one circumstance;

b. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
c. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.

In this case, the prosecution sufficiently laid down the circumstances that, when taken
together, constituted an unbroken chain that led to a reasonable conclusion that Celedonio
was the perpetrator.
CASE # 12 G.R. No. 180016, 29 April 2014 conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the owner and that
LITO CORPUZ vs. PEOPLE the time of occurrence is not a material ingredient of the crime. Hence, the
exclusion of the period and the wrong date of the occurrence of the crime, as
reflected in the Information, do not make the latter fatally defective.
FACTS: Accused Corpuz received from complainant Tangcoy pieces of jewelry with an
obligation to sell the same and remit the proceeds of the sale or to return the same if not
sold, after the expiration of 30 days. Further, the following satisfies the sufficiency of information:
1. The designation of the offense by the statute;
 The period expired without Corpuz remitting anything to Tangcoy. When Corpuz 2. The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense;
and Tangcoy met, Corpuz promised that he will pay, but to no avail. Tangcoy filed 3. The name of the offended party; and
a case for estafa with abuse of confidence against Corpuz. 4. The approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place
 Corpuz  argued as follows: wherein the offense was committed.
a. The proof submitted by Tangcoy (receipt) is inadmissible for being a mere The 4th element is satisfied. Even though the information indicates that the time of offense
photocopy. was committed “on or about the 5th of July 1991,” such is not fatal to the prosecution’s
b. The information was defective because the date when the jewelry should be cause considering that Section 11 of the same Rule requires a statement of the precise
returned and the date when crime occurred is different from the one testified to by time only when the same is a material ingredient of the offense.
Tangcoy.
c. Fourth element of estafa or demand is not proved. 3. Note first that the elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows:
d. Sole testimony of Tangcoy is not sufficient for conviction
ISSUES:
(a) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on
1. Can the court admit as evidence a photocopy of document without violating the commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make
best evidence rule (only original documents, as a general rule, is admissible as delivery of, or to return the same;
evidence)? YES
(b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender
2. Is the date of occurrence of time material in estafa cases with abuse of or denial on his part of such receipt;
confidence? NO
3. What is the form of demand required in estafa with abuse of confidence? (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and
4. May a sole witness be considered credible? YES (d) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender.
RULING: No specific type of proof is required to show that there was demand. Demand need not
even be formal; it may be verbal. The specific word “demand” need not even be used to
1. Yes. The established doctrine is that when a party failed to interpose a timely show that it has indeed been made upon the person charged, since even a mere query as
objection to evidence at the time they were offered in evidence, such objection to the whereabouts of the money [in this case, property], would be tantamount to a
shall be considered as waived. demand. 
In Tubb v. People, where the complainant merely verbally inquired about the money
entrusted to the accused, the query was tantamount to a demand.
Here, Corpuz never objected to the admissibility of the said evidence at the time it was 4. Yes.  Note first that settled is the rule that in assessing the credibility of witnesses,
identified, marked and testified upon in court by Tangcoy. Corpuz also failed to raise an SC gives great respect to the evaluation of the trial court for it had the unique
objection in his Comment to the prosecution’s formal offer of evidence and even admitted opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and their deportment on the
having signed the said receipt. witness stand, an opportunity denied the appellate courts, which merely rely on
the records of the case.
2. No.  It is true that the gravamen of the crime of estafa with abuse of confidence
under Article 315, paragraph 1, subparagraph (b) of the RPC is the appropriation or
 The assessment by the trial court is even conclusive and binding if not tainted with
arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence, especially
when such finding is affirmed by the CA. Truth is established not by the number of
witnesses, but by the quality of their testimonies, for in determining the value and
credibility of evidence, the witnesses are to be weighed not numbered. 
CASE # 13 GR NO. 120367, OCTOBER 16, 2000 PEOPLE VS. ANTONIO BARRETA house for valuables to steal. These simultaneous events show applicants' intention to both rob and kill the
victim. There is no showing that the robbery was committed after the homicide as an afterthought or as a minor
FACTS: Sometime on January 26, 1988, in the afternoon, Epifania Balboa arrived at the farmhouse of her son, incident to the homicide. The criminal acts of appellants cannot, thus, be viewed as two distinct offenses.
Dominador Balboa, in Taguite, Babatngon, Leyte. She informed him that there were suspicious-looking persons in
the house of his half brother, Clemente Tesaluna, Jr., some 200 meters away. Dominador and his hired hand, 2. No, only Rogelio was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of minority since Rogelio was 17 years old at the
named Celso Salas, became concerned. They farmed in a remote part of a mountainous area accessible only by time of the commission of the crime while the others were already of the age of majority.
walking. Strangers were seldom seen there. Dominador dashed off to Clemente's house.
CASE # 14 GR NO. 160188, JUNE 21, 2007 Aristotle Valenzuela v. People
Near the house he stopped, for he could not get nearer than fifty (50) meters. There he easily recognized the
brothers Antonio, Danilo, Domingo, Edgar, Lito and Rogelio, all surnamed Barreta. Dominador was familiar with FACTS: Petitioner and Jovy Calderon were sighted outside the Super Sale Club, a supermarket within the
the Barretas, since they resided in Bagong Silang, a neighboring barangay. Three of them, namely Antonio, Lito ShoeMart (SM) complex along North EDSA, by Lorenzo Lago (Lago), a security guard who was then manning his
and Danilo were holding an unarmed Clemente. They were holding bolos, locally known as "pisao." He saw post at the open parking area of the supermarket. Lago saw petitioner, who was wearing an identification card
Antonio, Lito and Danilo stab Clemente with their bolos. Antonio hit Clemente on the right side of his body. with the mark Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU), hauling a pushcart with cases of detergent of the well-known
Danilo stabbed him on the left, followed by a thrust by Lito to Clemente's right. Meanwhile Domingo, Edgar and Tide brand. Petitioner unloaded these cases in an open parking space, where Calderon was waiting. Petitioner
Rogelio ransacked Clemente's house. Domingo then took Clemente's hoe, scythe and bolo, then hurriedly left the then returned inside the supermarket, and after five (5) minutes, emerged with more cartons of Tide Ultramatic
place. They jumped out of the house and escaped towards the mountains. and again unloaded these boxes to the same area in the open parking space. When Lago asked petitioner for a
receipt of the merchandise, petitioner and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago fired a warning shot to
Clemente died from the wounds inflicted on him by the Barreta brothers. Epifania informed the victim's wife, alert his fellow security guards of the incident. Petitioner and Calderon were apprehended at the scene, and the
Renila, of her husband's fate. Several barangay officials and some relatives accompanied her home. They found stolen merchandise recovered. Before the Court of Appeals, petitioner argued that he should only be convicted
Clemente dead with three clearly visible wounds. Some P700.00 in cash and farm implements were missing. The of frustrated theft since at the time he was apprehended, he was never placed in a position to freely dispose of
bag where Clemente kept his money was forced open with a bolo. the articles stolen.

The Provincial Prosecutor's Officer filed the Information and charged Antonio, Danilo, Domingo, Edgar, Lito, and ISSUE: Is the crime committed frustrated or consummated theft?
Rogelio, thus: That on or about the 26th day of January, 1988 in the municipality of Babatngon, Province of
Leyte, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, RULING: The crime is consummated. The following elements of theft as provided for in Article 308 of the Revised
confederating and mutually helping one another, did, then and there with malice aforethought and with Penal Code, namely: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3)
deliberate intent to take the life of Clemente Tesaluna, Sr., willfully, unlawfully and feloniously suddenly, that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5)
unexpectedly and treacherously take advantage of superior strength and with the aid of armed men attack and that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon
hack the latter with long bolos, producing fatal wounds on the body of the said Clemente Tesaluna, Sr., thereby things. There was no need of an intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property to constitute an
causing his direct and immediate death. unlawful taking.

ISSUE: 1. Whether the guilt of appellants of the crimes of robbery in band and murder were proven by the So long as the descriptive circumstances that qualify the taking are present, including animo lucrandi and
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt; and apoderamiento, the completion of the operative act that is the taking of personal property of another
2. Whether minority should be considered as a privileged mitigating circumstance in favor of appellants. establishes, at least, that the transgression went beyond the attempted stage. Insofar as we consider the present
question, unlawful taking is most material in this respect. Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation of one’s
personal property, is the element which produces the felony in its consummated stage. At the same time,
RULING: 1. No, the appellants should not have been convicted of the separate offenses of murder and robbery without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense could only be attempted theft, if at all. With these
in band under Articles 248 (1) and 296 of the Revised Penal Code, respectively, but of robbery with homicide considerations, we can only conclude that under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have a
under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. In the instant case, the testimony of prosecution eyewitness frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted or consummated.
Dominador Balboa shows, that the killing of the deceased took place simultaneously with the robbery. While
Antonio, Lito, and Danilo attacked the victim in his kitchen, Danilo, Domingo, and Rogelio were ransacking the
Case 17 G.R. No. 163437 Feb. 13, 2008

Ernesto Pideli v People

Facts: Placido Cancio (Placido) and Wilson Pideli (Wilson) were partners and subcontractors in a rip rapping and
spillway project at Benguet. Petitioner Ernesto Pideli offered to use his credit limit with the Mt. Trail Farm Supply
and Hardware (MTFSH) to Placido and Wilson for their purchase of construction materials. After the release of
the final payment to Wilson and Placido for the project, they calculated their expenses and realized a net income
of P130, 000.00. This was fully entrusted to the custody of Pideli for the settlement of their account with MTFHS.
Pideli was instructed that the balance should be delivered to Wilson and Placido. The two, however, did not
anymore receive anything from Pideli. They were informed that nothing was left from the proceeds after the
settlement of their account. A criminal complaint was filed against him and the Regional Trial Court found Pideli
guilty of the crime of theft. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court.

Issue: WON Pideli commited theft or estafa

Held: Elements of theft are; there is a taking of personal property; the property belonged to another, the taking
is done with intent to gain; the taking is without the consent of the owner and the taking is accomplished
without the use of violence against of intimidation of persons or force upon things.

All the elements are present. The amount received by the petitioner is for payment of their credit on
the store and its surplus is to be given to Placido and Wilson in which he failed. In his defense, he said that he
was only acting in good faith however, it is jurisprudentially settled that intent is a mental state, the existence of
which is made manifest by overt acts of the person. The intent to gain is presumed from the taking of property
appertaining to another.

The principal distinction between the two crimes is that in theft the thing is taken while in estafa the
accused receives the property and converts it to his own use or benefit. However, there may be theft even if the
accused has possession of the property. If he was entrusted only with the material or physical (natural) or de
facto possession of the thing, his misappropriation of the same constitutes theft, but if he has the juridical
possession of the thing, his conversion of the same constitutes embezzlement or estafa. The petitioner having no
juridical possession of the thing only qualifies the crime as theft. The amount in question is juridically possessed
by the partnership of Wilson and Placido.