Case No.

3
Corpuz vs People
GR No. 180016 April 29, 2014

Facts:

Lito Corpuz, the petitioner, received from private 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.

The period expired without Corpuz remitting anything to Tangcoy. When Corpuz and Tangcoy
met, Corpuz promised that he will pay, but to no avail. Tangcoy filed a case for estafa under
Article 315, paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code against Corpuz. One of
the arguments of Corpuz was that the fourth element of estafa, which is, that there is a demand
by the offended party on the offender, was not proved.

Issue:

Whether or not Corpuz is guilty of the crime of estafa.

Ruling:

Yes.

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 show that it has
indeed been made upon the person charged, since even a mere query as to the whereabouts of
the money [in this case, property], would be tantamount to a demand.

As expounded in Asejo v. People:

With regard to the necessity of demand, we agree with the CA that demand under this kind of
estafa need not be formal or written. The appellate court observed that the law is silent with
regard to the form of demand in estafa under Art. 315 1(b), thus:

When the law does not qualify, We should not qualify. Should a written demand be necessary,
the law would have stated so. Otherwise, the word "demand" should be interpreted in its general
meaning as to include both written and oral demand. Thus, the failure of the prosecution to
present a written demand as evidence is not fatal.