Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 440 views

    Salazar Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Ansis Villalon Pornillos
    The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Jorge Salazar for estafa. Skiva advanced $41,300 to Aurora/Uni-Group, where Salazar was an officer, for materials to produce jeans. However, only enough materials for 200 dozen jeans were purchased, not the 700 dozen ordered. Salazar withdrew most of the funds from the joint account. He did not provide evidence the money was used for materials or returned. This satisfied the elements of estafa through misappropriation despite the victim not being the owner.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Salazar Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Ansis Villalon Pornillos
    440 views1 page
    The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Jorge Salazar for estafa. Skiva advanced $41,300 to Aurora/Uni-Group, where Salazar was an officer, for materials to produce jeans. However, only enough materials for 200 dozen jeans were purchased, not the 700 dozen ordered. Salazar withdrew most of the funds from the joint account. He did not provide evidence the money was used for materials or returned. This satisfied the elements of estafa through misappropriation despite the victim not being the owner.

    Original Title

    Salazar vs People

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Jorge Salazar for estafa. Skiva advanced $41,300 to Aurora/Uni-Group, where Salazar was an officer, for materials to produce jeans. However, only enough materials for 200 dozen jeans were purchased, not the 700 dozen ordered. Salazar withdrew most of the funds from the joint account. He did not provide evidence the money was used for materials or returned. This satisfied the elements of estafa through misappropriation despite the victim not being the owner.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    440 views1 page

    Salazar Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Ansis Villalon Pornillos
    The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Jorge Salazar for estafa. Skiva advanced $41,300 to Aurora/Uni-Group, where Salazar was an officer, for materials to produce jeans. However, only enough materials for 200 dozen jeans were purchased, not the 700 dozen ordered. Salazar withdrew most of the funds from the joint account. He did not provide evidence the money was used for materials or returned. This satisfied the elements of estafa through misappropriation despite the victim not being the owner.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SALAZAR VS PEOPLE Petitioner: Jorge Salazar Respondent: People of the Philippines Ponente: PUNO J.

    G.R. No. 149472

    October 15, 2002

    FACTS: The lower court convicted herein petitioner of estafa under Article 315 paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court and denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. Aggrieved by the said rulings, petitioner filed this instant petition for review. The established facts are as follows: Skiva International, Inc. ("Skiva") is a New York-based corporation which imports clothes from the Philippines through its buying agent, Olivier (Philippines) Inc. ("Olivier"). Aurora Manufacturing & Development Corporation ("Aurora") and Uni-Group Inc. ("UniGroup") are domestic corporations which supply finished clothes to Skiva. Mr. Werner Lettmayr is the President of both Aurora and Uni-Group while the petitioner, Jorge Salazar, is the Vice-President and Treasurer of Uni-Group and a consultant of Aurora. Skiva, through its buying agent, Olivier, has been purchasing finished clothes from Aurora and Uni-Group. When an order is procured for the delivery of clothes, Olivier, issues to the local supplier, Aurora/Uni-Group, a "Purchase Contract" and Olivier issues to Skiva a "Sales Contract". In these transactions, payment is usually made by way of a letter of credit wherein the supplier is paid only upon the presentation of the proper shipping documents to the designated bank. In December 1985, Skiva informed Olivier that it needs ladies jeans to be delivered sometime in January 1986. Olivier, in turn, through its Officer-in-Charge, Ms. Teresita Tujan, contacted Aurora and Uni-Group to supply the jeans. Thus, a Purchase Contract dated December 18, 1985 was issued by Olivier to Uni-Group wherein Uni-Group was to supply 700 dozens of three (3) different designs of "Ladies Basic 5 Pockets Stretch Twill Jeans" payable by means of a letter of credit at sight. On January 7, 1986, the parties agreed that Skiva will advance to Aurora/Uni-Group the amount of US$41,300.00 (then equivalent to P850,370.00 at the exchange rate of P20.59 to US$1.00) as Aurora/Uni-Group did not have sufficient funds to secure raw materials to manufacture the jeans. It was also agreed that the amount advanced by Skiva represents advance payment of its order of 700 dozens of ladies jeans. Skiva then issued a check in the said amount payable to Uni-Group. However, due to the length of time needed for the check to be cleared, the parties made arrangements to remit the funds instead by way of telegraphic transfer. Thus, the check issued by Skiva was returned by Mr. Lettmayr and as agreed, the funds were remitted by Skiva from its bank in New York, the Israel Discount Bank, to the joint account of Mr. and Mrs. Jorge Salazar and Mr. and Mrs. Werner Lettmayr at Citibank N.A. On January 16, 1986, petitioner, who had possession and control of the passbook of the said joint account, withdrew the amount of US$21,675.21 and on January 22, 1986, petitioner withdrew the amount of US$20,000.00. The prosecution also presented evidence that subsequent to said withdrawals, the amounts of US$71.70 and US$63.99 were deducted from the joint account as telegraphic transfer fee and commission for the remittance of the funds to another account. In the meantime, Ms. Tujan contacted Aurora/Uni-Group to follow up on the production of the jeans. She learned that only 3,000 meters out of the 10,000 meters of Litton fabrics required for the order were purchased from Litton Mills by the petitioner. 3,000 meters of Litton fabrics are enough to produce only 200 dozens of ladies jeans - an amount insufficient to satisfy the order of Skiva of 700 dozens of ladies twill jeans. Upon inquiry with Mr. Lettmayr, the latter advised Ms. Tujan that the query be directed to petitioner as petitioner is in charge of securing the materials. However, Ms. Tujan could not locate the petitioner.19 Consequently, in a letter dated March 13, 1986, demand was made upon Aurora/Uni-Group through its President, Mr. Lettmayr, to return the money advanced in the amount of US$41,300.00. For failure of Aurora/Uni-Group to deliver the ladies jeans or to account for the US$41,300.00 despite demand, Skiva, through its local agent represented by Ms. Tujan, filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Mr. Lettmayr and petitioner. After preliminary investigation, the Public Prosecutor dismissed the complaint against Mr. Lettmayr and an information was filed against petitioner.

    ISSUE: Whether the elements of estafa through conversion or misappropriation under Art. 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code have been proven beyond reasonable doubt HELD:Yes. RATIO: 1 Element - Petitioner, as an employee of Aurora/Uni-Group who was aware of the specific purpose of the remittance, upon receipt and withdrawal of the amount, had the obligation to return the funds or to account for the proceeds thereof to Aurora/Uni-Group. nd 2 Element - petitioner failed to present evidence to support his defense that payment for the purchase of fabrics had been made or that the balance of the amount received by petitioner was given to Aurora. rd 3 Element the finding of the trial court that Skiva, the party prejudiced, is not the owner of the sum misappropriated will not nullify the conviction of the petitioner. In estafa, the person prejudiced or the immediate victim of the fraud need not be the owner of the goods misappropriated - First Producers Holdings Corporation v. Co. Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "any person who shall defraud another by any means mentioned [in Article 315]" may be held liable for estafa. The use by the law of the word "another" instead of the word "owner" means that as an element of the offense, loss should have fallen upon someone other than the perpetrator of the crime. th 4 Element - the element of demand was satisfied when demand was made upon Aurora/Uni-Group. In Benito Sy y Ong v. People and Court of Appeals, it was also held that in a prosecution for estafa, demand is not necessary when there is evidence of misappropriation.
    st

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy