Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME254
170
1/13
8/13/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME254
FIRST DIVISION.
171
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
judgment of the trial court in determining the credibility of
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.
2/13
8/13/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME254
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.
4. To pay costs.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001567f87c46b81d094a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/13
8/13/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME254
Records, p. 1.
3Ibid.,
4
p. 168.
Rollo, p. 66.
173
173
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001567f87c46b81d094a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
4/13
8/13/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME254
174
5/13
8/13/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME254
Records, p. 49.
175
6/13
8/13/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME254
10
11
176
Price
Mga Uri
Halaga
P169,000.00
1 bracelet
170,000.00
total Kabuuan
P339,000.00
7/13
8/13/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME254
Exhibit 1, supra.
177
177
8/13
8/13/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME254
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.
178
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?
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001567f87c46b81d094a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
9/13
8/13/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME254
A:
Q:
A:
_______________
13
179
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
15
10/13
8/13/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME254
15
16
180
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.
11/13
8/13/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME254
18
181
181
12/13
8/13/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME254
Reyes, Luis B., The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, 13th ed., p. 658.
182
182
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001567f87c46b81d094a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
13/13