Lawyerly

GR No. 182276

2010-03-29

PEREZ, J.

In this case, it was clearly established by the testimonies of Abdon and Tiong that petitioner as salesman of Toyota received the check payment issued by Tiong and failed to turn over the check to the cashier of Toyota or to surrender the value of said check in accordance with his duty, upon demand. The law is clear that failure to account upon demand for funds or property held in trust as in the case at bar is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.[41] In Filadams Pharma, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[42] we reiterated that the demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the accused to account for it are circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. In this case, petitioner presented no satisfactory explanation for his inability to account for Philtrust Check No. AO-12122.

GR No. 162311

2008-12-04

LEVI STRAUSS v. TONY LIM

REYES, R.T., J.

Under the 1993 Revised Rules on Appeals from Resolutions in Preliminary Investigations or Reinvestigations,[45] the resolution of the investigating prosecutor is subject to appeal to the Justice Secretary[46] who, under the Revised Administrative Code, exercises the power of control and supervision over said Investigating Prosecutor; and who may affirm, nullify, reverse, or modify the ruling of such prosecutor.[47] If the appeal is dismissed, and after the subsequent motion for reconsideration is resolved, a party has no more appeal or other remedy available in the ordinary course of law.[48] Thus, the Resolution of the Justice Secretary affirming, modifying or reversing the resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor is final.[49]

GR No. 150536

2008-09-17

BIENVENIDO GOMBA v. PEOPLE

CORONA, J.

[A]n 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" a thing of value for one's own use or benefit [includes] not only conversion to one's personal advantage but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without a right.[11] The demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the accused to account for it are circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.[12] In this case, Gomba, as common area administrator, received the collections in trust for the association. The association made a demand upon Gomba to remit his collections. He failed to do so, despite several opportunities given to him. This was evidence that he misappropriated the money, bolstered by the fact that he merely submitted reports without the corresponding remittances on various occasions.[13]

GR No. 174350

2008-08-13

SPS. BERNYL BALANGAUAN KATHERENE BALANGAUAN v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

And while it is this Court's general policy not to interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations, leaving the investigating officers sufficient discretion to determine probable cause,[43] we have nonetheless made some exceptions to the general rule, such as when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority,[44] resulting from a grave abuse of discretion. Although there is no general formula or fixed rule for the determination of probable cause, since the same must be decided inthe light of the conditions obtaining in given situations and its existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examination, such a finding should not disregard the facts before the judge (public prosecutor) or run counter to the clear dictates of reason.[45]

GR No. 156337

2007-09-28

UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

However, it is sometimes necessary to delve into factual issues in order to resolve allegations of grave abuse of discretion as a ground for the special civil action of certiorari and prohibition.[10] In Filadams Pharma, Inc. v. CA,[11] one of the issues resolved by this Court was whether or not the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the dismissal of therein petitioner's complaint-affidavit. In resolving said issue, the Court proceeded to determine factual and evidentiary matters in order to ascertain whether there was probable cause warranting the filing of information for estafa against the private respondent therein. In the same manner, in NBI-Microsoft Corporation v. Hwang,[12] this Court, in resolving whether the DOJ acted with grave abuse of discretion in not finding probable cause to charge therein respondents with copyright infringement and unfair competition, proceeded to determine the sufficiency of evidence to support a finding of probable cause against said respondents.

GR NO. 156248

2007-08-28

MARISSA CENIZA-MANANTAN v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The essence of estafa under this paragraph is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received, to the prejudice of the owner thereof. It takes place when a person actually appropriates the property of another for his own benefit, use and enjoyment.[30] In a prosecution for estafa, demand is not necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation or conversion; and failure to account, upon demand for funds or property held in trust, is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.[31]

GR NO. 160540

2007-03-22

VICIA D. PASCUAL v. PEOPLE

CORONA, J.

In estafa through misappropriation under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the RPC, the following essential elements must be present: (1) that money, goods, or other personal property is received by the accused in trust or on commission or for administration or under any obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same; (2) that there is misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the accused 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 accused.[19]

GR NO. 168301

2007-03-05

ANTONIO B. MONFORT III v. MA. ANTONIA M. SALVATIERRA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As a general rule, this Court will not interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations and leave to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the exercise of determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for the filing of an information against an offender.[49] As an exception, however, this Court may inquire into the determination of probable cause during the preliminary investigation if, based on the records, the prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion.[50] In the case at bar, the City Prosecutor of Cadiz, the Regional State Prosecutor for Region VI, and the Secretary of Justice had consistently ruled that there is no probable cause to indict the private respondents for the crime of perjury. We find no grave abuse of discretion or manifest error on their part considering the fact that their non-finding of probable cause is supported by the evidence on record. It is well to state, too, that the resolution of the Secretary of Justice declaring the absence or existence of a probable cause and affirmed by the Court of Appeals is accorded high respect and generally conclusive on this Court.[51] We find no exceptional reasons to deviate from this principle.

GR NO. 164715

2006-09-20

ARNEL C. ALCARAZ v. RAMON C. GONZALEZ

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Petitioner further avers that the Justice Secretary is not a quasi-judicial officer within the context of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. He reiterates his claim that the CA has no appellate jurisdiction to review the assailed resolutions of the Secretary of Justice by way of a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, the proper remedy being a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Petitioner cites the rulings of this Court in Filadams Pharma, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[21] and Public Utilities Department of Olongapo City v. Guingona, Jr.[22] to support his contention. He further insists that the determination of probable cause for the filing of an Information in court is not a judicial function, but an executive function; hence, the findings and resolutions of the Justice Secretary should prevail over the CA ruling.

GR NO. 153198

2006-07-11

CRISANTA B. BONIFACIO v. PEOPLE

CORONA, J.

In an agency for the sale of jewelry, it is the agent's duty to return the jewelry on demand of the owner. The demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the accused-agent to account for it are circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.[11]

GR NO. 154363

2005-09-13

JOEL P. LIBUIT v. PEOPLE

The elements of estafa under Article 315 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: (1) that money, goods, or other personal properties are 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 is a 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.[9]

	GR No. 182276 2010-03-29	DIONISIO AW v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
In this case, it was clearly established by the testimonies of Abdon and Tiong that petitioner as salesman of Toyota received the check payment issued by Tiong and failed to turn over the check to the cashier of Toyota or to surrender the value of said check in accordance with his duty, upon demand. The law is clear that failure to account upon demand for funds or property held in trust as in the case at bar is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.[41] In Filadams Pharma, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[42] we reiterated that the demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the accused to account for it are circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. In this case, petitioner presented no satisfactory explanation for his inability to account for Philtrust Check No. AO-12122.
	GR No. 162311 2008-12-04	LEVI STRAUSS v. TONY LIM REYES, R.T., J.
Under the 1993 Revised Rules on Appeals from Resolutions in Preliminary Investigations or Reinvestigations,[45] the resolution of the investigating prosecutor is subject to appeal to the Justice Secretary[46] who, under the Revised Administrative Code, exercises the power of control and supervision over said Investigating Prosecutor; and who may affirm, nullify, reverse, or modify the ruling of such prosecutor.[47] If the appeal is dismissed, and after the subsequent motion for reconsideration is resolved, a party has no more appeal or other remedy available in the ordinary course of law.[48] Thus, the Resolution of the Justice Secretary affirming, modifying or reversing the resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor is final.[49]
	GR No. 150536 2008-09-17	BIENVENIDO GOMBA v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
[A]n 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" a thing of value for one's own use or benefit [includes] not only conversion to one's personal advantage but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without a right.[11] The demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the accused to account for it are circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.[12] In this case, Gomba, as common area administrator, received the collections in trust for the association. The association made a demand upon Gomba to remit his collections. He failed to do so, despite several opportunities given to him. This was evidence that he misappropriated the money, bolstered by the fact that he merely submitted reports without the corresponding remittances on various occasions.[13]
	GR No. 174350 2008-08-13	SPS. BERNYL BALANGAUAN KATHERENE BALANGAUAN v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
And while it is this Court's general policy not to interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations, leaving the investigating officers sufficient discretion to determine probable cause,[43] we have nonetheless made some exceptions to the general rule, such as when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority,[44] resulting from a grave abuse of discretion. Although there is no general formula or fixed rule for the determination of probable cause, since the same must be decided inthe light of the conditions obtaining in given situations and its existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examination, such a finding should not disregard the facts before the judge (public prosecutor) or run counter to the clear dictates of reason.[45]
	GR No. 156337 2007-09-28	UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
However, it is sometimes necessary to delve into factual issues in order to resolve allegations of grave abuse of discretion as a ground for the special civil action of certiorari and prohibition.[10] In Filadams Pharma, Inc. v. CA,[11] one of the issues resolved by this Court was whether or not the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the dismissal of therein petitioner's complaint-affidavit. In resolving said issue, the Court proceeded to determine factual and evidentiary matters in order to ascertain whether there was probable cause warranting the filing of information for estafa against the private respondent therein. In the same manner, in NBI-Microsoft Corporation v. Hwang,[12] this Court, in resolving whether the DOJ acted with grave abuse of discretion in not finding probable cause to charge therein respondents with copyright infringement and unfair competition, proceeded to determine the sufficiency of evidence to support a finding of probable cause against said respondents.
	GR NO. 156248 2007-08-28	MARISSA CENIZA-MANANTAN v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The essence of estafa under this paragraph is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received, to the prejudice of the owner thereof. It takes place when a person actually appropriates the property of another for his own benefit, use and enjoyment.[30] In a prosecution for estafa, demand is not necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation or conversion; and failure to account, upon demand for funds or property held in trust, is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.[31]
	GR NO. 160540 2007-03-22	VICIA D. PASCUAL v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
In estafa through misappropriation under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the RPC, the following essential elements must be present: (1) that money, goods, or other personal property is received by the accused in trust or on commission or for administration or under any obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same; (2) that there is misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the accused 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 accused.[19]
	GR NO. 168301 2007-03-05	ANTONIO B. MONFORT III v. MA. ANTONIA M. SALVATIERRA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As a general rule, this Court will not interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations and leave to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the exercise of determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for the filing of an information against an offender.[49] As an exception, however, this Court may inquire into the determination of probable cause during the preliminary investigation if, based on the records, the prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion.[50] In the case at bar, the City Prosecutor of Cadiz, the Regional State Prosecutor for Region VI, and the Secretary of Justice had consistently ruled that there is no probable cause to indict the private respondents for the crime of perjury. We find no grave abuse of discretion or manifest error on their part considering the fact that their non-finding of probable cause is supported by the evidence on record. It is well to state, too, that the resolution of the Secretary of Justice declaring the absence or existence of a probable cause and affirmed by the Court of Appeals is accorded high respect and generally conclusive on this Court.[51] We find no exceptional reasons to deviate from this principle.
	GR NO. 164715 2006-09-20	ARNEL C. ALCARAZ v. RAMON C. GONZALEZ CALLEJO, SR., J.
Petitioner further avers that the Justice Secretary is not a quasi-judicial officer within the context of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. He reiterates his claim that the CA has no appellate jurisdiction to review the assailed resolutions of the Secretary of Justice by way of a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, the proper remedy being a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Petitioner cites the rulings of this Court in Filadams Pharma, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[21] and Public Utilities Department of Olongapo City v. Guingona, Jr.[22] to support his contention. He further insists that the determination of probable cause for the filing of an Information in court is not a judicial function, but an executive function; hence, the findings and resolutions of the Justice Secretary should prevail over the CA ruling.
	GR NO. 153198 2006-07-11	CRISANTA B. BONIFACIO v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
In an agency for the sale of jewelry, it is the agent's duty to return the jewelry on demand of the owner. The demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the accused-agent to account for it are circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.[11]
	GR NO. 154363 2005-09-13	JOEL P. LIBUIT v. PEOPLE
The elements of estafa under Article 315 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: (1) that money, goods, or other personal properties are 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 is a 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.[9]

FILADAMS PHARMA v. CA