Lim V CA

8/13/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME254
170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lim vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 102784. February 28, 1996.
ROSA LIM, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Civil Law Contracts Fact that accuseds signature appears
on the upper portion of the receipt does not have the effect of
altering the terms of the transaction from a contract of agency to
sell on commission basis to a contract of sale.Rosa Lims
signature indeed appears on the upper portion of the receipt
immediately below the description of the items taken. We find
that this fact does not have the effect of altering the terms of the
transaction from a contract of agency to sell on commission basis
to a contract of sale. Neither does it indicate absence or vitiation
of consent thereto on the part of Rosa Lim which would make the
contract void or voidable. The moment she affixed her signature
thereon, petitioner became bound by all the terms stipulated in
the receipt. She, thus, opened herself to all the legal obligations
that may arise from their breach.
Same Same A contract of agency to sell on commission basis
does not belong to any of the three categories, hence it is valid and
enforceable in whatever form it may be entered into.However,
there are some provisions of the law which require certain
formalities for particular contracts. The first is when the form is
required for the validity of the contract the second is when it is
required to make the contract effective as against third parties
such as those mentioned in Articles 1357 and 1358 and the third
is when the form is required for the purpose of proving the
existence of the contract, such as those provided in the Statute of
Frauds in Article 1403. A contract of agency to sell on commission
basis does not belong to any of these three categories, hence it is
valid and enforceable in whatever form it may be entered into.
Criminal Procedure Evidence Credibility of Witnesses
Weight of evidence is not determined mathematically by the
numerical superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given fact.
The issue as to the return of the ring boils down to one of
credibility. Weight of evidence is not determined mathematically
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001567f87c46b81d094a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/13
8/13/2016
by the numerical superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given

fact. It depends
_______________
*
FIRST DIVISION.
171
VOL. 254, FEBRUARY 28, 1996
171
upon its practical effect in inducing belief on the part of the judge
trying the case. In the case at bench, both the trial court and the
Court of Appeals gave weight to the testimony of Vicky Suarez
that she did not authorize Rosa Lim to return the pieces of
jewelry to Nadera.
Same Same Same Court should not interfere with the
judgment of the trial court in determining the credibility of
witnesses.We shall not disturb this finding of the respondent
court. It is well settled that we should not interfere with the
witnesses, unless there appears in the record some fact or
circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked
or the significance of which has been misinterpreted. The reason
is that the trial court is in a better position to determine questions
involving credibility having heard the witnesses and having
observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the
trial.
PETITION for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Zosa & Quijano Law Offices for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondents.
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:
This is a petition to review the Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CAG.R. CR No. 10290, entitled People v. Rosa
Lim, promulgated on August 30, 1991.
On January 26, 1989, an Information for Estafa was
filed against petitioner Rosa Lim before1 Branch 92 of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The Information
reads:
2/13
8/13/2016
That on or about the 8th day of October 1987, in Quezon City,

Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the said accused with intent to gain, with unfaithfulness and/or
abuse of confidence, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously defraud one VICTORIA SUAREZ, in the following
manner, to wit: on
_______________
1
Docketed as Criminal Case No. Q892216.
172
172

the date and place aforementioned said accused got and received
in trust from said complainant one (1) ring 3.35 solo worth
P169,000.00, Philippine Currency, with the obligation to sell the
same on commission basis and to turn over the proceeds of the
sale to said complainant or to return said jewelry if unsold, but
the said accused once in possession thereof and far from
complying with her obligation despite repeated demands therefor,
misapplied, misappropriated and converted the same to her own
personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said
offended party in the amount aforementioned and in such other
amount as may be awarded under the provisions of the Civil
Code.
2
CONTRARY TO LAW.
After arraignment and trial on the merits, the trial court

rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby
rendered:
1. Finding accused Rosa Lim GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the offense of estafa as defined and penalized
under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal
Code
2. Sentencing her to suffer the Indeterminate penalty of
FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision
correccional as minimum, to TEN (10) YEARS of prision
mayor as maximum
3. Ordering her to return to the offended party Mrs. Victoria
Suarez the ring or its value in the amount of P169,000
without subsidiary imprisonment in case insolvency and
3
4. To pay costs.
3/13
8/13/2016
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of

conviction with the modification that the penalty imposed
shall be six (6) years, eight (8) months and twentyone (21)
days to twenty (20) years in accordance
with Article 315,
4
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration before the
appellate court on September 20, 1991, but the motion was
_______________
2
Records, p. 1.
3Ibid.,
4
p. 168.
Rollo, p. 66.
173
173
denied in a Resolution dated November 11, 1991.

In her final bid to exonerate herself, petitioner filed the
instant petition for review alleging the following grounds:
I
THE
RESPONDENT
COURT
VIOLATED
THE
CONSTITUTION, THE RULES OF COURT AND THE
DECISION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN NOT PASSING
UPON THE FIRST AND THIRD ASSIGNED ERRORS IN
PETITIONERS BRIEF
II
THE RESPONDENT COURT FAILED TO APPLY THE
PRINCIPLE THAT THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE WAS
WAIVED WHEN THE PRIVATE PROSECUTOR CROSS
EXAMINED THE PETITIONER AND AURELIA NADERA AND
WHEN COMPLAINANT WAS CROSSEXAMINED BY THE
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER AS TO THE TRUE
NATURE OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES
WHEREIN IT WAS DISCLOSED THAT THE TRUE
AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES WAS A SALE OF JEWELRIES
AND NOT WHAT WAS EMBODIED IN THE RECEIPT
MARKED AS EXHIBIT A WHICH WAS RELIED UPON BY
THE RESPONDENT COURT IN AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION AGAINST HEREIN PETITIONER and
III
4/13
8/13/2016
THE RESPONDENT COURT FAILED TO APPLY IN THIS

CASE THE PRINCIPLE ENUNCIATED BY THIS HONORABLE
COURT TO THE EFFECT THAT ACCUSATION IS NOT,
ACCORDING TO THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW, SYNONYMOUS
WITH GUILT THE PROSECUTION MUST OVERTHROW THE
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE WITH PROOF OF GUILT
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. TO MEET THIS STANDARD,
THERE IS NEED FOR THE MOST CAREFUL SCRUTINY OF
THE TESTIMONY OF THE STATE, BOTH ORAL AND
DOCUMENTARY,
INDEPENDENTLY
OF
WHATEVER
DEFENSE IS OFFERED BY THE ACCUSED. ONLY IF THE
JUDGE BELOW AND THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COULD
ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE CRIME HAD BEEN
COMMITTED PRECISELY BY THE PERSON ON TRIAL
UNDER SUCH AN EXACTING TEST
174
174

SHOULD SENTENCE THUS REQUIRED THAT EVERY

INNOCENCE BE DULY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THE PROOF
AGAINST HIM MUST SURVIVE THE TEST OF REASON THE
STRONGEST SUSPICION MUST NOT BE PERMITTED
TO
5
SWAY JUDGMENT. (People vs. Austria, 195 SCRA 700)
Herein the pertinent facts as alleged by the prosecution.

On or about October 8, 1987, petitioner Rosa Lim who
had come from Cebu received from private respondent
Victoria Suarez the following two pieces of jewelry: one (1)
3.35 carat diamond ring worth P169,000.00 and one (1)
bracelet worth P170,000.00, to be sold on commission basis.
The agreement
was reflected in a receipt marked as
6
Exhibit A for the prosecution. The transaction took place
at the Sir Williams Apartelle in Timog Avenue, Quezon
City, where Rosa Lim was temporarily billeted.
On December 15, 1987, petitioner returned the bracelet
to Vicky Suarez, but failed to return the diamond ring or to
turn over the proceeds thereof if sold. As a result, private
complainant, aside
from making verbal demands, wrote a
7
demand letter to petitioner asking for the return of said
ring or the proceeds of the sale thereof. 8 In response,
petitioner, thru counsel, wrote a letter to private
respondents counsel alleging that Rosa Lim had returned
both ring and bracelet to Vicky Suarez sometime in
September, 1987, for which reason, petitioner had no
longer any liability to Mrs. Suarez insofar as the pieces of
5/13
8/13/2016
jewelry were concerned. Irked, Vicky Suarez filed a

complaint for estafa under Article 315, par 1(b) of the
Revised Penal Code for which the petitioner herein stands
convicted.
Petitioner has a different version.
Rosa Lim admitted in court that she arrived in Manila
from Cebu sometime in October 1987, together with one
Aurelia
_______________
5
Rollo, pp. 1314.
Records, p. 49.
Exhibit B Records, p. 50.
Exhibit C Records, p. 51.

175
175
Nadera, who introduced petitioner to private respondent,

and that they were lodged at the Williams Apartelle in
Timog, Quezon City. Petitioner denied that the transaction
was for her to sell the two pieces of jewelry on commission
basis. She told Mrs. Suarez that she would consider buying
the pieces of jewelry for her own use and that she would
inform the private complainant of such decision before she
goes back to Cebu. Thereafter, the petitioner took the
pieces of jewelry and told Mrs. Suarez to prepare the
necessary paper for 9 me to sign because I was not yet
prepare(d) to buy it. After the document was prepared,
petitioner signed it. To prove that she did not agree to the
terms of the receipt regarding the sale on commission
basis, petitioner insists that she signed the aforesaid
document on the upper portion thereof and not at the
bottom where a space is provided
for the signature of the
10
person(s) receiving the jewelry.
On October 12, 1987 before departing for Cebu,
petitioner called up Mrs. Suarez by telephone in order to
inform her that she was no longer interested in the ring
and bracelet. Mrs. Suarez replied that she was busy at the
time and so, she instructed the petitioner to give the pieces
of jewelry to Aurelia Nadera who would in turn give them
back to the private complainant. The petitioner did as she
was told and gave the two pieces of jewelry to Nadera as
evidenced
by a handwritten receipt, dated October 12,
11
1987.
6/13
8/13/2016
Two issues need to be resolved: First, what was the real

transaction between Rosa Lim and Vicky Suareza
contract of agency to sell on commission basis as set out in
the receipt or a sale on credit and, second, was the subject
diamond ring returned to Mrs. Suarez through Aurelia
Nadera?
Petitioner maintains that she cannot be liable for estafa
since she never received the jewelries in trust or on
commission basis from Vicky Suarez. The real agreement
between her and the private respondent was a sale on
credit with Mrs.
_______________
9
TSN, June 29, 1989, p. 5.
10
Exhibits 1, 1b Records, p. 49.
11
Exhibits 2, 2a Records, p. 93.

176
176

Suarez as the ownerseller and petitioner as the buyer, as

indicated by the fact that petitioner did not sign on the
blank space provided for the signature of the person
receiving the jewelry but at the upper portion thereof
12
immediately below the description of the items taken.
The contention is far from meritorious.
The receipt marked as Exhibit A which establishes a
contract of agency to sell on commission basis between
Vicky Suarez and Rosa Lim is herein reproduced in order
to come to a proper perspective:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY, that I received from Vicky Suarez
PINATUTUNAYAN
KO
na
aking
tinanggap
kay
________________
the following jewelries:
ang mga alahas na sumusunod:
Description
Price
Mga Uri
Halaga
1 ring 3.35 solo
P169,000.00
1 bracelet
170,000.00
total Kabuuan
P339,000.00
in good condition, to be sold in CASH ONLY within . . . days

from date of signing this receipt na nasa mabuting kalagayan
7/13
8/13/2016
upang ipagbili ng KALIWAAN (ALCONTADO) lamang sa loob ng

. . . araw mula ng ating pagkalagdaan:
if I could not sell, I shall return all the jewelry within the period
mentioned above if I would be able to sell, I shall immediately deliver
and account the whole proceeds of sale thereof to the owner of the
jewelries at his/her residence my compensation or commission shall be
the overprice on the value of each jewelry quoted above. I am prohibited
to sell any jewelry on credit or by installment deposit, give for
safekeeping lend, pledge or give as security or guaranty under any
circumstance or manner, any jewelry to other person or persons.
kung hindi ko maipagbili ay isasauli ko ang lahat ng alahas sa loob ng
taning na panahong nakatala sa itaas kung maipag
_______________
12
Exhibit 1, supra.
177
177
bili ko naman ay dagli kong isusulit at ibibigay ang buong pinagbilhan sa

mayari ng mga alahas sa kanyang bahay tahanan ang aking
gantimpala ay ang mapapahigit na halaga sa nakatakdang halaga sa
itaas ng bawat alahas HINDI ko pinahihintulutang ipauutang o
ibibigay na hulugan ang alin mang alahas, ilalagak, ipagkakatiwala
ipahihiram isasangla o ipananagot kahit sa anong paraan ang alin mang
alahas sa ibang mga tao o tao.
I sign my name this . . . day of . . . 19 . . . at Manila,

NILALAGDAAN ko ang kasunduang ito ngayong ika ___ ng dito
sa Maynila.
________________________
Signature of Persons who
received jewelries (Lagda
ng Tumanggap ng mga Alahas)
Address:..........................................................
Rosa Lims signature indeed appears on the upper portion

of the receipt immediately below the description of the
items taken. We find that this fact does not have the effect
of altering the terms of the transaction from a contract of
agency to sell on commission basis to a contract of sale.
Neither does it indicate absence or vitiation of consent
thereto on the part of Rosa Lim which would make the
contract void or voidable. The moment she affixed her
signature thereon, petitioner became bound by all the
terms stipulated in the receipt. She, thus, opened herself to
8/13
8/13/2016
all the legal obligations that may arise from their breach.
This is clear from Article 1356 of the New Civil Code which
provides:
Contracts shall be obligatory in whatever form they may have
been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for their
validity are present. x x x.
However, there are some provisions of the law which

require certain formalities for particular contracts. The
first is when the form is required for the validity of the
contract the second is when it is required to make the
contract effective as against
178
178

third parties such as those mentioned in Articles 1357 and

1358 and the third is when the form is required for the
purpose of proving the existence of the contract, such13 as
those provided in the Statute of Frauds in Article 1403. A
contract of agency to sell on commission basis does not
belong to any of these three categories, hence it is valid and
enforceable in whatever form it may be entered into.
Furthermore, there is only one type of legal instrument
where the law strictly prescribes the location of the
signature of the parties thereto. This is in the case of
notarial wills found in Article 805 of the Civil Code, to wit:
Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at
the end thereof by the testator himself x x x.
The testator or the person requested by him to write his name
and the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as
aforesaid, each and every page thereof, except the last, on the left
margin x x x.
In the case before us, the parties did not execute a notarial
will but a simple contract of agency to sell on commission
basis, thus making the position of petitioners signature
thereto immaterial.
Petitioner insists, however, that the diamond ring had
been returned to Vicky Suarez through Aurelia Nadera,
thus relieving her of any liability. Rosa Lim testified to this
effect on direct examination by her counsel:
Q: And when she left the jewelries with you, what did you
do thereafter?
9/13
8/13/2016
A:
On October 12, I was bound for Cebu. So I called up

Vicky through telephone and informed her that I am
no longer interested in the bracelet and ring and that I
will just return it.
Q:
And what was the reply of Vicky Suarez?
A:
She told me that she could not come to the apartelle

since
_______________
13
Tolentino, Arturo, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil
Code of the Philippines, Volume IV, 1991 ed., p. 543.

179
179
she was very busy. So, she asked me if Aurelia was

there and when I informed her that Aurelia was there,
she instructed me to give the pieces of jewelry to
Aurelia who in turn will give it back to Vicky.
Q: And you gave the two (2) pieces of jewelry to Aurelia

Nadera?
14
A: Yes, Your Honor.
This was supported by Aurelia Nadera in her direct

examination by petitioners counsel:
Q: Do you know if Rosa Lim in fact returned the
jewelries?
A:
She gave the jewelries to me.
Q:
Why did Rosa Lim give the jewelries to you?
A:
Rosa Lim called up Vicky Suarez the following

morning and told Vicky Suarez that she was going
home to Cebu and asked if she could give the jewelries
to me.
Q:
And when did Rosa Lim give to you the jewelries?
A:
Before she left for Cebu.
15
On rebuttal, these testimonies were belied by Vicky Suarez

herself:
Q: It has been testified to here also by both Aurelia
Nadera and Rosa Lim that you gave authorization to
10/13
8/13/2016
Rosa Lim to turn over the two (2) pieces of jewelries

mentioned in Exh ibit A to Aurelia Nadera, what can
you say about that?
A:
That is not true sir, because at that time Aurelia

Nadera is highly indebted to me in the amount of
P140,000.00, so if I gave it to Nadera,
I will be
16
exposing myself to a high srisk.
The issue as to the return of the ring boils down to one of

credibility. Weight of evidence is not determined
mathematically by the numerical superiority of the
witnesses testifying to a given fact. It depends upon its
practical effect in inducing
_______________
14
TSN, June 29, 1989, pp. 78.
15
TSN, November 16, 1989, p. 12.
16
TSN, November 21, 1989, p. 9.

180
180

17
belief on the part of the judge trying the case. In the case
at bench, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals gave
weight to the testimony of Vicky Suarez that she did not
authorize Rosa Lim to return the pieces of jewelry to
Nadera. The respondent court, in affirming the trial court,
said:
x x x This claim (that the ring had been returned to Suarez thru
Nadera) is disconcerting. It contravenes the very terms of Exhibit
A. The instruction by the complaining witness to appellant to
deliver the ring to Aurelia Nadera is vehemently denied by the
complaining witness, who declared that she did not authorize
and/or instruct appellant to do so. And thus, by delivering the ring
to Aurelia without the express authority and consent of the
complaining witness, appellant assumed the right to dispose of
the jewelry as if it were hers, thereby committing conversion, a
clear breach of trust, punishable under Article 315, par. 1(b),
Revised Penal Code.
We shall not disturb this finding of the respondent court. It

is well settled that we should not interfere with the
witnesses, unless there appears in the record some fact or
11/13
8/13/2016
circumstance of weight and influence which has been

overlooked or the significance of which has been
misinterpreted. The reason is that the trial court is in a
better position to determine questions involving credibility
having heard the witnesses and having observed 18their
deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.
Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code provides:
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa).Any person who shall defraud
another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be
punished by:
x x x x x x x x x
(b) 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
_______________
17
Francisco, Ricardo J., Evidence, 1993 ed., p. 11.
18
People v. Lagrosa, Jr., 230 SCRA 298 [1994].
181
181
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.
x x x x x x x x x
The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence under this

subdivision are as follows: (1) That money, goods, or other
personal property be 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 (2) That there be misappropriation or
conversion of such money or property by the offender or
denial on his part of such receipt (3) That such
misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice
of another and (4) That there is a demand made by the
offended party to the offender (Note: The 4th element is not
necessary when there is evidence
of misappropriation of
19
the goods by the defendant)
All the elements of estafa under Article 315, Paragraph
1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, are present in the case at
12/13
8/13/2016
bench. First, the receipt marked as Exhibit A proves that

petitioner Rosa Lim received the pieces of jewelry in trust
from Vicky Suarez to be sold on commission basis. Second,
petitioner misappropriated or converted the jewelry to her
own use and, third, such misappropriation obviously
caused damage and prejudice to the private respondent.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the
Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla (Chairman), Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ.,
concur.
Vitug, J., In the results.
_______________
19
Reyes, Luis B., The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, 13th ed., p. 658.
182
182

Metrolab Industries, Inc. vs. RoldanConfesor
Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

Note.If a competent person has once assented to a
contract freely and fairly he is bound thereby. (Alcasid vs.
Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 419 [1994])
o0o
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
13/13

Lim V CA

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Lim V CA

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

8/13/2016

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

G.R. No. 102784. February 28, 1996.

ROSA LIM, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and

by the numerical superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given

VOL. 254, FEBRUARY 28, 1996

Lim vs. Court of Appeals

PETITION for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

That on or about the 8th day of October 1987, in Quezon City,

Docketed as Criminal Case No. Q892216.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

After arraignment and trial on the merits, the trial court

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of

VOL. 254, FEBRUARY 28, 1996

Lim vs. Court of Appeals

denied in a Resolution dated November 11, 1991.

THE RESPONDENT COURT FAILED TO APPLY IN THIS

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SHOULD SENTENCE THUS REQUIRED THAT EVERY

Herein the pertinent facts as alleged by the prosecution.

jewelry were concerned. Irked, Vicky Suarez filed a

Rollo, pp. 1314.

Exhibit B Records, p. 50.

Exhibit C Records, p. 51.

VOL. 254, FEBRUARY 28, 1996

Lim vs. Court of Appeals

Nadera, who introduced petitioner to private respondent,

Two issues need to be resolved: First, what was the real

TSN, June 29, 1989, p. 5.

Exhibits 1, 1b Records, p. 49.

Exhibits 2, 2a Records, p. 93.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Suarez as the ownerseller and petitioner as the buyer, as

1 ring 3.35 solo

in good condition, to be sold in CASH ONLY within . . . days

upang ipagbili ng KALIWAAN (ALCONTADO) lamang sa loob ng

VOL. 254, FEBRUARY 28, 1996

Lim vs. Court of Appeals

bili ko naman ay dagli kong isusulit at ibibigay ang buong pinagbilhan sa

I sign my name this . . . day of . . . 19 . . . at Manila,

Rosa Lims signature indeed appears on the upper portion

However, there are some provisions of the law which

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

third parties such as those mentioned in Articles 1357 and

On October 12, I was bound for Cebu. So I called up

And what was the reply of Vicky Suarez?

She told me that she could not come to the apartelle

Tolentino, Arturo, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil

Code of the Philippines, Volume IV, 1991 ed., p. 543.

VOL. 254, FEBRUARY 28, 1996

Lim vs. Court of Appeals

she was very busy. So, she asked me if Aurelia was

Q: And you gave the two (2) pieces of jewelry to Aurelia

A: Yes, Your Honor.

This was supported by Aurelia Nadera in her direct

She gave the jewelries to me.

Why did Rosa Lim give the jewelries to you?

Rosa Lim called up Vicky Suarez the following

And when did Rosa Lim give to you the jewelries?

Before she left for Cebu.

On rebuttal, these testimonies were belied by Vicky Suarez

Rosa Lim to turn over the two (2) pieces of jewelries

That is not true sir, because at that time Aurelia