Case Digest (G.R. No. L-38711)
Facts:
- Francisco Sycip is the petitioner against the Honorable Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines.
- On August 25, 1970, the Court of First Instance of Manila convicted Sycip of estafa.
- He received an indeterminate penalty of three months of arresto mayor as minimum to one year and eight months of prision correccional as maximum.
- Sycip was ordered to indemnify complainant Jose K. Lapuz P5,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay costs.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision but removed the subsidiary imprisonment clause.
- In April 1961, Lapuz received 2,000 shares of stock from Albert Smith, covered by a certificate in the name of Dwight Dill.
- Lapuz was to sell the shares at market value and receive a commission.
- Sycip claimed he could sell the shares at a favorable price and sold 758 shares for P12,128.00 but failed to deliver the proceeds.
- This led to dishonored checks and Lapuz filing a complaint for estafa against Sycip.
- The case reached the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari, with Sycip raising several issues.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not err in denying the petitioner a hearing.
- The Court found that the petitioner was not denied due process of law.
- The Court held that the provisions on compensation under the Civil Code were not applicable in this case.
- The Court ruled that the complaint should not have been dismissed as Lapuz was the legally aggrieved party.
- The Court determined that the issu...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The Supreme Court reasoned that the petitioner had ample opportunity to present his case during the trial, and the appellate court's procedures did not violate his right to due process.
- The right to be heard does ...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-38711)
Facts:
The case involves Francisco Sycip as the petitioner against the Honorable Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines as respondents. The events leading to the case began on August 25, 1970, when the Court of First Instance of Manila convicted Sycip of estafa, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of three months of arresto mayor as minimum to one year and eight months of prision correccional as maximum. He was also ordered to indemnify the complainant, Jose K. Lapuz, the sum of P5,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The Court of Appeals later affirmed the trial court's decision but removed the subsidiary imprisonment clause.
The facts, as established by the appellate court, indicate that in April 1961, Jose K. Lapuz received 2,000 shares of stock from Albert Smith, which were covered by a certificate in the name of Dwight Dill, who had left for Honolulu. Lapuz was to sell these shares at the current market value and receive a commission. Sycip approached Lapuz, claiming he had good connections in the Stock Exchange and could sell the shares at a favorable price. Lapuz made it clear that the shares were entrusted to him for sale and not owned by him. After Sycip sold 758 shares for P12,128.00, he failed to deliver the proceeds to Lapuz, leading to a series of dishonored checks and ultimately to Lapuz filing a complaint for estafa against Sycip.
The case was brought to the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari, where Sycip raised several issues regarding the appellate court's decisions, including claims of denial of due process, the applicability of compensation under the Civil Code...