ARTICLE 5

LITO CORPUZ, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

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. 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 follows:

a. The proof submitted by Tangcoy (receipt) is inadmissible for being a mere photocopy.
b. 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.
c. Fourth element of estafa or demand is not proved.
d. Sole testimony of Tangcoy is not sufficient for conviction
 
ISSUES:

Can the court admit as evidence a photocopy of document without violating the best evidence
rule (only original documents, as a general rule, is admissible as evidence)?

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.

Here, 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.

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 conversion of money or
property received to the prejudice of the owner and that 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.

Further, the following satisfies the sufficiency of information:

1. The designation of the offense by the statute;
2. The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense;
3. The name of the offended party; and
4. The approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was
committed.
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.