Tuozo, Lourdes Clouie D.

Corpuz v People G.R. No. 180016 April 29, 2014

Nature of case: Petition for Certiorari
Facts
Lito 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. 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
with abuse of confidence against Corpuz. Corpuz argued as that the proof submitted by Tangcoy
(receipt) is inadmissible for being a mere photocopy, that the information was defective because
the date when the jewelry should be returned and the date when crime occurred is different from
the one testified to by Tangcoy, that the Fourth element of estafa or demand is not proved, and
the Sole testimony of Tangcoy is not sufficient for conviction.

Issue
Whether or not the court can admit as evidence a photocopy of document without violating the
best evidence rule.
W h e t h e r o r n o t t h e d e m a n d t o r e t u r n t h e j e w e l r y , i f   unsold, or remit the
proceeds, if sold, is a valid demand under one of the elements of Estafa under Art.
315 (1b) of the RPC.

Held
Yes. The established doctrine is that when a party failed to interpose a timely objection to
evidence at the time they were offered in evidence, such objection shall be considered as waived.
Yes. It is a valid demand.
Ruling
The guilty party is obliged to return the jewelry based on one of the elements of article 315 of the
RPC. Article 315 par. 4 (1b) states that: By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of
another, money, goods, or any other personal property 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, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed
by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property. Corpuz never
objected to the admissibility of the said evidence at the time it was identified, marked and
testified upon in court by Tangcoy. Corpuz also failed to raise an objection in his Comment to
the prosecution’s formal offer of evidence and even admitted having signed the said receipt. 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. Hence, the petition for
certiorari is denied. The Court of Appeals did not err in its decision, and the petitioner Lito
Corpuz is obligated to return the jewelry in form or in monetary value.