[G.R. No. 180016. April 29, 2014.

]
LITO CORPUZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

I SSUES:
1. 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)?
2. Is the date of occurrence of time material in estafa cases with abuse of confidence?
3. What is the form of demand required in estafa with abuse of confidence?
4. May a sole witness be considered credible?
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: proof submitted by Tangcoy (receipt) is inadmissible for being
a mere photocopy; 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; fourth element of estafa or demand is not proved; sole testimony of Tangcoy is
not sufficient for conviction.
RULI NGS:

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)?
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 prosecutions formal offer of evidence and even admitted
having signed the said receipt.
I s the date of occurrence of time material in estafa cases with abuse of confidence?
No. 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 4
th
element is satisfied. Even though the information indicates that the time of offense was
committed on or about the 5
th
of July 1991, such is not fatal to the prosecutions cause
considering that Section 11 of the same Rule requires a statement of the precise time only when
the same is a material ingredient of the offense.

What is the form of demand required in estafa with abuse of confidence?
Note first that the elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows:
(a) that money, goods or other personal property is 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;
(b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or
denial on his part of such receipt;
(c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and
(d) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender.
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.
In Tubb v. People, where the complainant merely verbally inquired about the money entrusted to
the accused, the query was tantamount to a demand.

May a sole witness be considered credible?
Yes. Note first that settled is the rule that in assessing the credibility of witnesses, SC gives great
respect to the evaluation of the trial court for it had the unique opportunity to observe the
demeanor of witnesses and their deportment on the witness stand, an opportunity denied the
appellate courts, which merely rely on the records of the case.
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.