ERLINDA ASEJO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R.
No. 157433, July 24, 2007
“x x x.
With regard to the necessity of demand, we agree with the CA
that demand under this kind of estafa
need not be formal or written. The appellate court observed that the law is silent with regard to the form
of demand in estafa under Art. 315 1(b), thus:
When the law does not qualify, We
should not qualify. Should a written demand be necessary, the law would
have stated so. Otherwise, the word demand should be interpreted in its
general meaning as to include both written and oral demand. Thus, the
failure of the prosecution to present a written demand as evidence is not
fatal.[19]
In Tubb v.
People, 101 Phil. 114, 119 (1957), where
the complainant merely verbally inquired
about the money entrusted to the accused, we held that the query was tantamount to a demand, thus:
[T]he law does not require a
demand as a condition precedent to the existence of the crime of embezzlement.
It so happens only that failure to account, upon demand for funds or property
held in trust, is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. The same way,
however, be established by other proof, such as that introduced in the case at
bar.[20]
Similarly in this case, there was a demand for
petitioner to pay private complainant. This was admitted by petitioner and
the private complainant in their testimonies. Castro stated that she went
to the house of petitioner in Pangasinan to demand the return of the money,
while petitioner stated that Castro demanded the return of the down payment
because allegedly, the sale did not materialize. In both versions, the
fact remains that demand was made upon petitioner.
X x x.”
Read also:
