Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
2. Also the persons who were awarded lots but sold or lease them
out.
3. Intruders of lands reserved for socialized housing, preempting
possession by occupying the same. (Urban Development and
Housing Act)
ARTICLE 313 (Altering Boundaries or Landmarks)
Q: What are the elements of this crime?
A:
1. There are boundary marks or monuments of towns, provinces, or
estates, or any other marks intended to designate the boundaries
of the same.
2. Offender alters said boundary marks.
Note: Intent to gain is not necessary. Mere act of altering or
destruction of the boundary marks is sufficient.
CULPABLE INSOLVENCY
ARTICLE 314 (Fraudulent Insolvency)
2.
3.
Does not cover checks where the purpose of drawing the check is to
guarantee a loan.
Note: The check must be genuine. If the check is falsified and is cashed with the
bank or exchanged for cash, the crime is estafa thru falsification of a commercial
document.
The check must be issued in payment of a simultaneous obligation,
not one which is preexisting.
Illustration:
The accused must be able to obtain something from the offended party by
means of the check he issued and delivered. Thus, if A issued a check in
favor of B for a debt he has incurred a month or so ago, the dishonor of the
check for insufficiency of funds in the bank does not constitute Estafa. But if
A told B to deliver to him P10,000 and he (A) would issue in his favor a
check in the sum of P11,000 as it was a Sunday and A needed the cash
urgently, and B gave his P10,000 having in mind the profit of P1,000 when
he encashes the check on Monday and the check bounced when deposited, A
can be held liable for Estafa. In such case, it was clear that B would have not
parted with his P10,000 were it not for the issuance of As check. It must not
be promissory notes, or guaranties.
Q: Can the fact that the accused was not the actual maker of the check be
put up as a defense?
A: No. In the case of People v. Isleta, et.al. (61 Phil. 332), and reiterated in the
case of Zalgado v. CA (178 SCRA 146) it was held that the appellant who only
negotiated directly and personally the check drawn by another is guilty of estafa
because he had guilty knowledge that at the time he negotiated the check, the
drawer has no sufficient funds.
In other words, whether the accused was charged under either paragraph 2(a) or
2(d) of Article 315 of the RPC, he would still be guilty of estafa because damage
and deceit, which are essential elements of the offense, have been established with
satisfactory proof. The fraudulent act was committed prior to or simultaneous with
the issuance of the bad check. The guarantee and the simultaneous delivery of the
checks by the accused were the enticement and the efficient cause of the
defraudation committed against Apolonio who suffered damage amounting to
P87,000.00 as a result of the fraud committed by Garcia in paying him
underfunded checks drawn by three different persons. (Garcia v. People, G.R. No.
144785, Sept. 11, 2003)
Q: Is the accuseds mere failure to turn over the thing delivered to him in
trust despite demand and the duty to do so, constitute estafa under Art. 315
par 1 (b)?
A: No. The essence of estafa under Art. 315 (1) (b) of the RPC is the appropriation
or conversion of money or property received, to the prejudice of the owner
thereof. It takes place when a person actually appropriates the property of
another for his own benefit, use and enjoyment. The failure to account, upon
demand, for funds or property held in trust is a mere circumstantial evidence of
misappropriation. In other words, the demand for the return of the thing delivered
in trust and the failure of the accused to account for it are circumstantial evidence
of misappropriation. However, this presumption is rebuttable. If the accused is
able to satisfactorily explain his failure to produce the thing delivered in trust, he
may not be held liable for estafa. In the case at bar, however, since the medrep
failed to explain his inability to produce the thing delivered to him in trust, the
rule that the failure to account, upon demand, for funds or property held in trust
is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation applies without doubt. (Filadams
Pharma, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 132422, Mar. 30, 2004)
Q: What are the elements of Estafa through fraudulent means under Article
315 (3)?
A:
1. Under paragraph (a)
a. Offender induced the offended party to sign a document.
b. Deceit was employed to make him sign the document.
c. Offended party personally signed the document.
d. Prejudice was caused.
Illustration:
A induced an illiterate owner who was desirous of mortgaging his property for a
certain amount, to sign a document which he believed was only a power of attorney
but in truth it was a deed of sale. A is guilty of Estafa under par.3(a) and the damage
could consist at least in the disturbance in property rights. (U.S. vs. Malong, GR. No. L
12597, Aug.30, 1917)
Illustration:
When a lawyer, pretending to verify a certain pleading in a case
pending before a court, borrows the folder of the case, and removes or
destroys a document which constitutes evidence in the said case, said
lawyer is guilty of estafa under par.3(c).
In partnership Partners are not liable for estafa of money or property
received for the partnership when the business commenced and profits
accrued.
THEFT
is involved.
is involved.
ESTAFA
Subject matter
may be real
property
Taking is by means
of force upon
things or violence
against or
Not so
Not so
Penalty depends
Penalty depends on
on the amount
the amount
involved
involved
intimidation of
persons.
Penalty does not
necessarily depend
on the amount
involved.
Offender takes the
property without
property without
owner by using
threats,
using threats,
intimidation or
intimidation or
violence
violence
Offender receives
the property
Note: The crime is theft even if the property was delivered to the
offender by the owner or possessor, if the latter expects an immediate
return of the property delivered, that is, he delivered only the physical
Q:
What
are
the
distinctions
between
estafa
with
abuse
of
MALVERSATION
CONFIDENCE
Funds or property are
always private.
Offender is a private
or property.
Offender who is
is accountable for
public funds or
or property.
Crime is committed by
property.
Crime is committed by
misappropriating,
appropriating, taking
converting or denying
or misappropriating or
abandonment or
property.
negligence, permitting
any other person to
take the public funds
or property.
Offenders are entrusted with funds or property
Continuing offenses
and bracelet, Rosa delivered both items to Aurelia in Cebu City with
the understanding that Aurelia shall, in turn, return the items to
Victoria in Timog, Quezon City. Aurelia dutifully returned the
bracelet to Victoria but sold the ring, kept the cash proceeds thereof
to herself, and issued a check to Victoria which bounced. Victoria
sued Rosa for estafa under Article 315, RPC, Victoria insisting that
delivery to a third person of the thing held in trust is not a defense
in
estafa.
Is
Rosa
criminally
liable
for
estafa
under
the
circumstances?
A: No, Rosa cannot be held criminally liable for estafa. Although she
received the jewelry from Victoria under an obligation to return the same
or deliver the proceeds thereof, she did not misappropriate it. In fact, she
gave them to Aurelia specifically to be returned to Victoria. The
misappropriation was done by Aurelia, and absent the showing of any
conspiracy between Aurelia and Rosa, the latter cannot be held
criminally liable for Aurelia's acts. Furthermore, as explained above,
Rosa's negligence which may have allowed Aurelia to misappropriate the
jewelry does not make her criminally liable for estafa. (1999 Bar
Question)
Q: Distinguish estafa and infidelity in the custody of document.
A:
ESTAFA
INFIDELITY IN THE
CUSTODY OF
DOCUMENTS
Public officer entrusted
entrusted
Intent to defraud
No intent to defraud
1.
and
2.
A:
1. Defrauding
or damaging another
by any other
deceit not
ESTAFA
The property involved is real
property
Selling or pledging of personal
property
To constitute estafa, it is sufficient
the mortgagee