Balitaan vs CFI of Batangas 1.
Personal property is received in trust, commission, for administration or
under any other circumstance involving the duty to make delivery or return
Rita: True that Balitaan just wants to show the source of P127.58 being (even when guaranteed by a bond).
misappropriated. But when she testified that Rita deducted said amount from the 2. There is conversion or diversion of such property by the person who has so
proceeds falsely representing that the same belonged to Cesar and should be received it.
delivered to him but did not and that she misappropriated, it is objectionable because 3. That such conversion, diversion or denial is to the injury of another.
it proves estafa committed in the manner as alleged in the information but a manner 4. That there be a demand for the return of the property.
not alleged therein.
Purpose of requiring various elements of a crime to be set out in an
Balitaan: There are only two motions presented before the MTC 1) the strike out information=enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense.
because immaterial and at variance 2) motion objecting to any and all other questions
concerning the checks. These are the only motions, CFI went beyond the merits of the Matters of evidence=need not be averred. Example: not necessary to show on the
motions. face of an information for forgery in what manner a person to be defrauded, as
that is a matter of evidence at trial (Pau: Compare this with Tantuico).
Held: You are wrong Balitaan. Aside from two motions, it also moved to strike out
complaining witness’ testimony relating to the receipt of the three checks and cashing Reasonable certainty in the statement of the crime suffices.
thereof by Rita and that there is variance because there is no allegation or averment
that the accused got a portion of the amount of cash for the purpose of having it Held: Three checks need not be alleged in the information. This is evidentiary
delivered to Cesar. matter. Proof of checks and their total amount was material evidence of the act
that resp misappropriated amount of P127.58.
Contrary to Balitaan’s contention that this issue was not raised in Civil case no. 81,
Rita aptly quoted her arguments in her memorandum: Information charges accused Two kinds of estafa, different.
with estafa with unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence when she misappropriated
Grave abuse of trust=received in trust or on commission. Previous demand
and converted such amount.
necessary.
But testimony of the complainant tends to prove another kind of estafa=used false
Deceit or false representation: Damage must be proved. Demand not necessary.
pretense or fraudulent act.
But they may co-exist. So long as there is a relation of trust and confidence bet
The essence of the criminal act shown by the testimonial evidence is the element of
the complainant and the accused, even though such rel has been induced by the
deceit, and that this is an entirely different kind of estafa charged against the accused.
accused thru false rep and pretense, estafa committed is by abuse of confidence
(Pau: Compare with Tantuico): although deceit co-exists in its commission.
It is fundamental that every element of which the offense is composed must be Presence of deceit will not change the whole theory of the prosecution that
alleged in the complaint or information. What facts and circumstances are necessary estafa with abuse of confidence was committed. If by means of deceit, it is
to be stated must be determined by reference to the definitions and the essentials of essential that false statement or fraudulent rep constitutes the very cause or only
the specific crimes. motive which induces the complainant to part with the thing.
Element of estafa through misappropriation or with grave abuse of confidence:
Duman / Evidence
