Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VIRGIE SERONA v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 172820 2010-06-23	DULCE PAMINTUAN v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
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.[15] The words ÒconvertÓ and ÒmisappropriateÓ connote the act of using or disposing of anotherÕs property as if it were oneÕs own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon.[16] 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.[17] 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.[18]
	GR No. 165411 2009-06-18	WILMA TABANIAG v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
The factual milieu of the case at bar is similar to Serona v. Court of Appeals[35](Serona) where pieces of jewelry were also transferred to a sub-agent. The Solicitor General, however, contends that the doctrine laid down in Serona is inapplicable as the agreement between complainants and petitioner provide a clear prohibition against sub-agency.[36]
	GR NO. 137162 2007-01-24	CORAZON L. ESCUETA v. RUFINA LIM AZCUNA, J.
(1) When he was not given the power to appoint one x x x. Applying the above-quoted provision to the special power of attorney executed by Ignacio Rubio in favor of his daughter Patricia Llamas, it is clear that she is not prohibited from appointing a substitute. By authorizing Virginia Lim to sell the subject properties, Patricia merely acted within the limits of the authority given by her father, but she will have to be "responsible for the acts of the sub-agent,"[19] among which is precisely the sale of the subject properties in favor of respondent.
	GR NO. 153198 2006-07-11	CRISANTA B. BONIFACIO v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
The essence of estafa under Article 315 (1)(b), RPC is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received, to the prejudice of the owner. The words "convert" and "misappropriate" connote an 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.[10]
	GR No. 158495 2004-10-21	ELIZABETH EUSEBIO-CALDERON v. PEOPLE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
An accused who is acquitted of Estafa may nevertheless be held civilly liable where the facts established by the evidence so warrant.[16] Petitioner Elizabeth Calderon is clearly liable to the private respondents for the amount borrowed. The Court of Appeals found that the former did not employ trickery or deceit in obtaining money from the private complainants, instead, it concluded that the money obtained was undoubtedly loans for which petitioner paid interest. The checks issued by petitioner as payment for the principal loan constitute evidence of her civil liability which was deemed instituted with the criminal action.