Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
(a)
by using fictitious name, or actions, falsely pretending to
possess power, influence, qualification, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
There must be a formal demand on the offender to comply with his obligation before he can
be charged with estafa.
b)
There can be no estafa without a previous demand. Demand may be made in whatever
form. The 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 however,
be established in the case at bar. (Tubb v. People, G.R. No. L-9811, 22 April 1957)
The word "Demand" need not be used to show that demand had, indeed, been made upon
the person charged with the offense. A query as to the whereabouts of the money is
tantamount to a demand. (Barrameda v. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 477)
No specific type of proof is required to show that there was demand. Demand need not even
be formal; it may be verbal. (Lee v. People, G.R. No. 157781, 11 April 2005)
The consummation of the crime of [estafa] does not depend on the fact that a request for
the return of the money is first made and refused in order that the author of the crime
should comply with the obligation to return the sum misapplied. The appropriation or
conversion of money received to the prejudice of the owner thereof [is] the sole essential
[fact] which constitute the crime of [estafa], and thereupon the author thereof incurs the
penalty imposed by the [RPC]. (Salazar v. People, 439 Phil. 762)
What are the elements of Estafa by means of deceit, under Article 315, par. 2 of
the Revised Penal Code?
The elements of Estafa by means of deceit are as follows:
(a)
(b) That such pretenses, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
(c) That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of
false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means;
(d)
There is no deceit if the complainant was aware if the fictitious nature of the pretense.
One of the elements of estafa is that The false pretense or fraudulent act must be
committed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. If deceit was not
present or occurred after the commission of the fraud, there is no estafa. Likewise also, if
the deceit was not the motivating factor for the offended party to get involved in a
transaction with the offending party.
No. Fraud is an element of Estafa. Its absence is fatal to the prosecution of the case. When
the allegation of deceit has not been proven, there is no Estafa. (Candido dela Cruz, CA
37 O.G. 1958)
PARTICIPATION
I. INTRODUCTION :
A. This refers to those who actually and directly take part in the execution of the act.
In all crimes there must always be those who actually perform the act which brings
about the crime. They may be only one person or more. Whenever there are two or
more involved in a crime, it becomes necessary to find out those who actually
executed the act so that all may be held equally liable.
II. For conspiracy to exist, there be an intentional felony, not a culpable felony, and it
must be proved that all those to be considered as PDPs performed the following:
1. This participation may be prior to the actual execution of the acts which produced
the crime ( Anterior Conspiracy ) or it may be at the very moment the acts are
actually being executed and carried out ( Instant Conspiracy).
2. Hence it is not necessary to prove that before the commission of the crime, the
several accused actually came and met together to plan or discuss the commission
of the crime.
B. (Unity of Action ). All participated in the execution or carrying out of the common
intent, design, purpose or objective by acts intended to bring about the common
objective.
1. Each must have performed an act, no matter how small or insignificant so long as
it was intended to contribute to the realization of the crime conspired upon. This
requires that the principal by direct participation must be at the crime scene, except
in the following instances:
B. He who commits the same or similar acts on the victim but is a stranger to the
conspiracy is separately liable. Simultaneous acts by several persons do not
automatically give rise to conspiracy.
C. Examples:
1. X joined in the planning of the crime but was unable to join his companions on the
day of the crime because he was hospitalized. He is not liable.
2. X is the common enemy of A and B who are strangers to one another. Both A and
B chanced upon X. A stabbed X while B shot him. A and B will have individual
liabilities.
(i). Aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object
(ii). Each doing a part so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact
connected and cooperative
(iii). Indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment
(iv).A conspiracy maybe inferred though no actual meeting among them to concert is
proved.
A. For the crime actually committed if it was the crime agreed upon
B. For any other crime even if not agreed upon, provided it was the direct, natural,
logical consequence of, or related to, or was necessary to effect, the crime agreed
upon. Otherwise only the person who committed the different crime will be held
liable.
B. Likewise, if for any reason not attributable to the law enforcement agents, he was
not able to proceed to the crime scene and/or execute an act to help realize the
common objective, then he can not be held liable as a co-conspirator. Thus he is not
liable if he got sick, overslept, or forgot about it, but not when law agents took him
into custody to prevent him from doing his part of the agreement.
Thus in Robbery with Homicide, all who conspired in the robbery will be liable for the
homicide unless one of the conspirators proved he tried to prevent the homicide.
I. Concept: Those who induce (PDP) to commit a crime either by: (a) force (b).
inducement
A. Active force or material force upon the person of the PDP, resulting to serious
bodily injury, to such a degree that the PDP is left with no choice but to do as
ordered or
B. Instilling fear of the commission or infliction of an equal or greater injury or evil
either to the PDP or the latters family or even to a third person.
III. Inducement connotes that there was an agreement or conspiracy between the PI
and the PDP. The inducement assumes several forms such as the following:
A. By the giving of a price, promise or reward. This must be made with the intention
of procuring the commission of the crime and not as an expression of appreciation.
The same must be the sole reason for the commission of the crime.
This also serves as an aggravating circumstance which will affect both the giver and
the recipient.
C. By the use of Inciting Words. These are words uttered while a crime is going on
by one who is present and are directed to a participant in the crime, such as the
words sige pa, kick him, kill him, bugbugin mo. The following must however be
considered
1. Whether the words were uttered by one with moral ascendancy over the accused
and to whom obedience is due from the accused
2. Whether the utterances were the result of the excitement generated by the
situation or that the utterer was caught up in his own excitement or emotion, or
whether the uttrerer was coolly and deliberately uttering such words with the intention
that they be acted upon
3. Whether the crime would be committed anyway even without the utterances, or if
such utterances were the moving cause of the crime
how to execute the crime such as on how to avoid security arrangements (ii)
revealing the combination numbers of a bank vault, or the location of warning
devices (iii) revealing the whereabouts of a victim: