Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 20

USED OF A FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS

Article 172(3)
The elements if the crime penalized under Article 172, paragraph 3, of
the Revised Penal Code are all present in this case, namely: the documents is
false; the offender had knowledge that such document was false; and, the
offender introduced in evidence in any judicial proceeding such false or
falsified document.

• The Court was not convinced that defendants had a lack


of knowledge of the falsity of complainant’s signature
on it. The falsified deed was presented in support of a
motion to dismiss filed by complainant in civil case,
which is a judicial proceeding.

• The defendants are criminally liable under Article


172(3) of the Revised Penal Code for presenting a false
document, for having knowledge of the falsity of the
document, and for introducing in evidence in any
judicial proceeding such false or falsified document.
(Aurora A. Sales vs. Benjamin D. Adapon, Ofelia C. Adapon, and
Teofilo D. Adapon October 05, 2016 G.R. No. 171420 Bersamin, J.
)

CRIME AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY

KIDNAPPING

The prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the


essential elements of the crime of kidnapping for ransom

The crime of kidnapping, defined under Article 267 of the Revised Penal
Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, is committed when any private
individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive
him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death

1  |  P a g e  
 
through the following circumstances: (a) If the kidnapping or detention shall
have lasted more than five days. (b) If it shall have been committed simulating
public authority. (c) If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted
upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been
made. (d) If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a
public officer. The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention
was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any
other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were
present in the commission of the offense.

• The law is indeed hard, but even in the case of the


herein five (5) accused who are not that hardened but
even seemingly amateurish in perpetrating their crime
without unnecessary maltreatment to their victim, it is
still the law on kidnapping for ransom.

• Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as well as its


amending Republic Act No, 7659, provides, that, "The
penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or
detention was committed for the purpose of extorting
ransom from the victim or any other person". The
kidnappers found guilty as principal cannot avoid the
imposition of this supreme penalty. (People of the
Philippines vs. Jay Gregorio Y Amar June 08, 2016 G.R. No.
194235 Leonardo-De Castro, J.

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS


RAPE

UNDER ARTICLE 266-A AND 266-B


1. Rape of a victim below seven (7) years old
The pertinent provisions of Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, provide: Art. 266-A. Rape; When and How
Commuted. -Rape is Committed - 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge

2  |  P a g e  
 
of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat,
or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; and d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or
is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be
present.

ART. 266-B. Penalties

Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished


by reclusion perpetua. The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of
rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances: 5. When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old.

• AAA still felt severe pain in her private part when she
was being given a bath by her mother after her
molestation. The kind of pain could not have been the
result of mere superficial rubbing of accused
appellant's sex organ with that of the victim. Such pain
could be nothing but the result of penile penetration
sufficient to constitute rape.

• When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of


age, the crime committed is termed statutory rape as it
departs from the usual modes of committing rape. What
the law punishes is carnal knowledge of a woman below
twelve years of age.

• In the instant case, there is no dispute that AAA was


four years of age when the crime was committed.
Resultantly, accused-appellant was charged and proven
guilty of statutory rape. As to the penalty, Article 266 -B
of the RPC, as amended, provides that the death
penalty shall be imposed if the victim is a child below
seven years old. However, following Republic Act No.
9346 the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of death

3  |  P a g e  
 
is imposed without eligibility for parole. (People vs Padit,
782 SCRA 562, February 01, 2016)

2. Force as an element of rape is that which is needed to


overpower the' resistance of the offended party and to
consummate the offense.

The crime of rape, defined under Article 266-A paragraph 1 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, is committed by having
carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the three circumstances: (a)
through force, threat or intimidation; (b) when the offended party is deprived of
reason or is otherwise unconscious; (c) by means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority; and, (d) when the offended party is under twelve (12)
years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present. And penalized under Article 266-B by reclusion
perpetua or death.

• The accused is guilty as he admitted that he used force


and violence against the victim AAA. Force as an
element of rape is that which is needed to overpower
the' resistance of the offended party and to
consummate the offense.

4  |  P a g e  
 
• In this case, the three (3) blows to the head with a stick
and several blows using his fist that caused AAA's
unconsciousness definitely enabled accused-appellant
to carry out his evil deed without any defense on the
part of the victim. He also testified that he boxed AAA
and when she fell, accused-appellant sat on her
stomach and boxed her again. (People of the Philippines vs.
Daryl Polonio y Tuangcay June 08, 2016 G.R. No. 211604
Leonardo-De Castro, J.)

3. Moral ascendancy over the victim

• Even absent any actual force or intimidation, rape may


be committed if the malefactor has moral ascendancy
over the victim. In rape committed by a close kin, such
as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the
common-law spouse of her mother, moral influence or
ascendancy substitutes for violence or intimidation.

• Based on the testimony of AAA, there was carnal


knowledge between her and appellant. This was further
corroborated by medical findings which showed vaginal
lacerations. It is noted that during pre-trial that the
appellant is victim's uncle by affinity and that she was
fourteen years old at the time of the rape incident.
(People of the Philippines Vs. Beltran Fuentes Jr. July 04, 2016
G.R. No. 212337 Perez, J.)

4. If offender is the common-law husband of the victim:


qualified rape is not committed.

• Rape is qualified when paragraph d of Article 266-A of


the RPC is present. However, the relationship of the
offender and the victim shall be taken into
consideration. In this instant case, the offender is the

5  |  P a g e  
 
common-law husband of the victim such relationship or
circumstance shall not qualify the rape but only a
simple one. (People Of The Philippines vs. Vicente R.
Salvador, July 20, 2016 G.R. No. 217381 Reyes, J.)

5. Date of Rape need not be precisely proved/


6. An intact hymen does not negate

• The discrepancies in AAA's testimony regarding the


exact date of the alleged rape subject of this case are
inconsequential, immaterial, and cannot discredit her
credibility as a witness.
• The Supreme Court held that the date of the rape need
not be precisely proved, considering that it is not a
material element of the offense.
• It is sufficient that the Information alleges that the
crime was committed on or about a specific date. The
date is not an essential element of the crime of rape
since the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge
of a woman.
• What is decisive in a rape charge is that the
commission thereof by the accused-appellant has been
sufficiently proven.

• On the matters of the medical examination result, it has


been invariably held that an intact hymen does not
negate a finding that the victim was raped. Penetration
of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even
the briefest of contacts and without rupture or
laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a
conviction for rape.

• In addition, a medical examination and a medical


certificate are merely corroborative and are not

6  |  P a g e  
 
indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case. (People
vs Tuboro GR No. 220023 August 8, 2016)

7. Youth and immaturity are badges of truth and sincerity

• The rule is well-settled that youth and immaturity are


badges of truth and sincerity. It is highly improbable for
an innocent girl such as private complainant, who is
very naïve in the ways of this world, to fabricate a
charge so humiliating not only to herself but to her
family.

• It is beyond cavil that appellant had carnal knowledge


of his daughter on three separate occasions and the
same were committed through force, threat, or
intimidation. Appellant also used his moral ascendancy
to cow his daughter to submit to his bestial desires.
(People vs Melchor Panes y Magsanop, September 11, 2017 G.R.
No. 215730 J. Del Castillo )
 

FRUSTRATED MURDER

Evident Premeditation
not present

• Accused did not have a cool thought and reflection when he


shot the victim, but rather, was obscured by the heat or
anger of the moment.

7  |  P a g e  
 
• The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution
of the criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection
upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent within a
space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.

• In this case, the Court views that the prosecution was unable
to establish the element of evident premeditation to qualify
the crime to frustrated murder.

• First, the circumstance must not merely be “premeditation”


but must be “evident premeditation”.

• Second, the prosecution failed to show a sufficient lapse of


time between such determination and execution to allow
Dorado to reflect upon the circumstances of his act.

• Lastly, Dorado did not have a cool thought and reflection


when he shot Ronald, rather he was obscured by the heat or
anger of the moment. Jerwin Dorado vs. People of the Philippines
October 03, 2016 G.R. No. 216671 Mendoza, J.

MURDER

1. Treachery

a. Treachery is present when the victim had no inkling that


his life was in danger and his defenses were down.

• In the instant case, it bears to emphasize that the


stabbing was not preceded by any argument between
the victim and the accused-appellant and that the

8  |  P a g e  
 
victim was just casually conversing with another person
at that time.

• When the accused-appellant surreptitiously approached


the victim from behind, the latter had no inkling nor
reason to believe that his life was in danger and his
defenses were down.

• Therefore, it is clear from the facts of the case that


accused-appellant is liable for murder with treachery as
qualifying circumstance. (People vs Roxas 784 SCRA 47, Feb
10, 2016)

b. The victim was too unprepared and helpless to defend


himself against three men

In this case, the victim was merely unwarily texting inside the
tent when the two men held him from behind so that the appellant
can deliver blows to his abdomen. The victim was too unprepared
and helpless to defend himself against these three men.
Furthermore, appellant's acts of dragging him to the nearby hut
and shooting him with a lead pipe (sumpak) evidently shows that
he consciously adopted means to ensure the execution of the
crime. (People vs Buenafe G.R. No. 212930 August 3, 2016)

c. Treachery is present when the victim had no inkling that


he would be shot such that he did not have any real
chance to defend himself

In the case at bar, the element of treachery attended the


shooting against Willy. Joven suddenly alighted from the
motorcycle, pointed his gun at Willy and immediately shot him.
The attack was sudden and unexpected. Willy, who was unarmed,
had no inkling that he would be shot such that he did not have
any real chance to defend himself. Hence, he is guilty beyond

9  |  P a g e  
 
reasonable doubt. (People of the Philippines vs. JovenGeron y Yema August
24, 2016, G.R. No. 208758)

2. Scoffing or outraging a corpse

• In the case at bench, all of the above-mentioned


elements of the crime of murder were proven beyond
reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

• First, it was established that the victim, was killed.

• Second, Accused-Appellants and Accused Frankie and


Christopher killed the victim as testified by the
prosecution witnesses, who saw how the victim was
simultaneously hacked and stabbed by them.

• Third, the killing was attended by the qualifying


circumstance of outraging or scoffing at the victim's
person or corpse. It was established that after the
victim was hacked and stabbed, Accused Frankie
decapitated his head and threw the same in the
"lubluban ng kalabaw".

• It is well-settled that mere decapitation of the victim's


head constitutes outraging or scoffing at the corpse of
the victim, thus qualifying the killing to murder. Lastly,
the killing of the victim neither constituted parricide nor
infanticide. (People of the Philippines vs. Frankie Gerero, et. al.
July 27, 2016 G.R. No. 213601 Perez, J.)

CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

10  |  P a g e  
 
THEFT

Not all the elements of theft proven

In every criminal conviction, the prosecution is required to prove two


things beyond reasonable doubt: first, the fact of the commission of the crime
charged, or the presence of all the elements of the offense; and second, the
fact that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime. Under Article 308 of the
Revised Penal Code, the essential elements of the crime of theft are: (1) the
taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking
away was done with intent to gain; (4) the taking away was done without the
consent of the owner; and (5) the taking away is accomplished without violence
or intimidation against person or force upon things.
• Not all the facts on which the inference of guilt is
based were proved. The matter of what and whose cell
phone the accused took from the altar still remains
uncertain.

• The facts and circumstances proven by the prosecution,


taken together, are not sufficient to justify the
unequivocal conclusion that the accused feloniously
took the victim's cell phone.

• No other convincing evidence was presented by the


prosecution that would link him to the theft. The fact
that Franco took a cell phone from the altar does not
necessarily point to the conclusion that it was
Nakamoto's cell phone that he took. Not all of the
elements of theft are present at instant case which can
convict the accused for the said crime. (Franco v
Philippines, 782 SCRA 526, Feb 1, 2016)

SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME OF


ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

11  |  P a g e  
 
1. The original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit
robbery

To warrant a conviction for Robbery with Homicide, the prosecution must prove the confluence of the
following elements:

(1) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person;
(2) the property thus taken belongs to another;

(3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and


(4) on occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used in a
generic sense, was committed.

• In proving Robbery with Homicide, it is necessary that


the robbery itself be established conclusively as any
other essential element of the crime.

• In the instant case, the testimonies of prosecution


witnesses, the extra-judicial confession of accused-
appellant and the Investigation Report of Urdaneta City
Police Station support the charge of the component
offense of Robbery.

• It should also be noted that in Robbery with Homicide,


the original criminal design of the malefactor is to
commit robbery; thus, the intent to commit robbery
must precede the taking of human life.

• Considering that the motive for robbery can exist


regardless of the exact amount or value involved, the
prosecution is not expected to prove the actual value of
the property stolen. More importantly, accused-
appellant's extrajudicial confession glaringly reveals his
intention to rob the deceased. (People of the Philippines
vs.Rodrigo Quitola Y Balmonte July 13, 2016 GR No.200537
Ponente:Perez, J)

12  |  P a g e  
 
2. The qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength
considered as
a generic aggravating circumstance

• Doctrine: When the killing is committed by reason of or on


the occasion of the robbery, the qualifying circumstances
attendant to the killing would be considered as generic
aggravating circumstances. Thus, the circumstance of abuse
of superior strength serves to aggravate the crime.

• The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength


is is taken into account whenever the aggressor purposely
used excessive force that is out of proportion to the means
of defense available to the person attacked. The felonious
acts of accused-appellant and the other malefactors of
robbing and killing the victim were clearly executed with
abuse of superior strength. Their combined force and
physical strength overwhelmed the victim and left him
defenseless.

• In the case at bar, Accused-appellant struck with his knife


the unarmed victim. The multiple stab wounds sustained by
the victim indisputably show that the group of accused-
appellant took advantage of their superior strength to
perpetrate the crime. (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff -
Appellee, vs Ardo Bacero Y Casabon, Accused-Appellant., July 20, 2016
G.R. No. 208527, Perez, J)

3. In Robbery with Homicide, the killing may take place before,


during and immediately after the robbery

• The SC had held that homicide may precede the robbery or


may occur after the robbery, as what is essential is that
there is a direct relation, an intimate connection between
the robbery and the killing.
• Appellant's co-accused admitted the taking of the cash,
checks, and pieces of jewelry of Spouses Ganzon. In fact,

13  |  P a g e  
 
some of which were even found in the houses of his co-
accused.
• Even though the appellant only acted as a lookout he is
also guilty for the crime of Robbery with homicide because
there is a conspiracy between him and his co-accused.
• Conspiracy can be inferred from and established by the
acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a
joint purpose and design, concerted action and community
of interests. There should be a proof establishing that the
accused were animated by one and the same purpose.

In the case at bar, Jessie and Rex (the co-accused of the


appellant) also testified that appellant was present when they
planned to rob the Ganzon's residence the day before the
incident. Furthermore, in robbing the Ganzon's residence,
appellant served as a look out while the others were robbing and
ransacking the house. Danilo even testified that it was appellant
who forcibly brought Mr. Ganzon from the bedroom to the sala of
the house before tying his hands and feet. Thus, the foregoing
circumstances prove beyond reasonable doubt that all of the
accused acted in concert to commit the crime of Robbery with
Homicide. (People vs. Espia 800 SCRA 170 August 2016)

SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME OF


ROBBERY WITH RAPE.

The State had satisfactorily established the essential elements of that felony:
"a) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation
against persons; b) the property taken belongs to another; c) the taking is done
with animo lucrandi, and d) the robbery is accompanied by rape

DOCTRINE The crime of robbery with rape is defined and penalized in Article
294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and sentencing them to
death. It is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any
personal property belonging to another, by means of violence or intimidation of
any person, or using force upon anything shall be guilty of robbery. When
14  |  P a g e  
 
robbery is accompanied by rape, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.
Although the trial court imposed the death penalty, the CA correctly modified
the penalty to reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, pursuant to RA
9346.

• The accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of


robbery with rape under Article 294 of RPC.

• The arresting officers were able to seize from them the


calculator owned by the victim and the two fifty-peso
bills which is the amount left of the P480.00 cash
money taken from her.

• It is established in evidence that there was forceful


penile penetration as shown by the medical certificate
and presence of spermatozoa.

• The abrasions and hematoma found in the body of the


victim are consistent with the struggle put up by the
rape victim, as evidence of rape abound.

• Indeed, the State in this case had satisfactorily


established the following essential elements of that
felony: "a) the taking of personal property is committed
with violence or intimidation against persons; b) the
property taken belongs to another; c) the taking is done
with animo lucrandi, and d) the robbery is accompanied
by rape. (People of the Philippines vs. Ronald Gabuya y Bacalan
June 08, 2016 G.R. No. 209038 Del Castillo, J.)

ESTAFA

UNDER ARTICLE 315 PARAGRAPH 1 (B)


OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE

Under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the RPC,22 the


elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows: (1)

15  |  P a g e  
 
that the money, goods or other personal property is received by
the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or
under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of,
or to return, the same; (2) that there be misappropriation or
conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial
on his part of such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) that
there is demand by the offended party to the offender.

Facts: Petitioners in this case are engaged in garments manufacturing.


Hiroshi proposed a joint venture to manufacture garments and agreed to
contribute money for a factory to be constructed in their lot in Cubao.
Rosalinda offered her lot in Monte Vista Park Subdivision, Cainta, Rizal and
Hiroshi acceded. The private complainants gave their P400,000.00
contribution to the petitioners for the construction of a two-storey factory
building.

Later, Hiroshi asked Belen to check the state of the factory because the
petitioners had been rejecting his phone calls. Belen saw a two-door studio-
type apartment, instead of a two-storey factory, and took pictures of the same.
Hiroshi was never shown the plan for a two-door studio-type apartments, which
Rosalinda presented in court.

• The Supreme Court finds that the presence of the first


and last elements is undisputed. The petitioners
received money in trust or for administration to build a
factory in Cainta, and that the private complainants,
through counsel, demanded the return of their
P400,000.00 which were received by the appellant.

• However, the elements of misappropriation and


prejudice were not sufficiently established. The
petitioners are acquitted of the crime of Estafa.
However, they are directed to reimburse the private
complainants the amount of P400,000. (Rosalinda S. Khitri
and Fernando S. Khitri Vs. People of the Philippines July 04, 2016
G.R. No. 210192 Reyes, J.)

16  |  P a g e  
 
COMPLEX CRIME OF
ESTAFA THRU FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT.

Elements

• The State was able to satisfactorily establish the


elements of estafa, to wit: "(1) that the accused
defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means
of deceit, and (2) that damage or prejudice capable of
pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or
third person."

• Moreover, the State was also able to establish the


following elements of the crime of Falsification of
Public Document: "(1) that the offender is a public
officer, employee, or notary public; (2) that he takes
advantage of his official position; (3) that he falsifies a
document by causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding; (4) [and] that
such person or persons did not in fact so participate in
the proceeding. (Esther Pascual vs. People of the Philippines
July 27, 2016 G.R. No. 204873 Del Castillo, J.)

SYNDICATED ESTAFA
Not present

Syndicated estafa is but the commission of any kind of estafa under


Article 315 of the RPC (or other forms of swindling under Article 316) with two
(2) additional conditions: one, the estafa or swindling was perpetrated by
a "syndicate" and two, the estafa or swindling resulted in the "misappropriation
of money contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperative,

17  |  P a g e  
 
samahangnayon(s), or farmers association, or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general public.

• In this case, the petitioners were the directors of BA


TELEC II that approved, for the said cooperative, the
contracts with ITI and Supertrac. The contracts required
BATELEC II to pay a total of P81,000,000.00 to ITI and
Supertrac in exchange for the system-wide
computerization of the cooperative and for ten (10)
boom trucks.

• Petitioners-in approving the ITI and Supertrac contracts


have committed undue haste, violated various NEA
guidelines and paid no regard to the disadvantageous
consequences of the said contracts to the interests of
BA TELEC II in general.

• Petitioners are not guilty. They cannot be regarded as a


"syndicate" under PD No. 1689 and second, as they
could not even be considered to have committed
simple estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the RPC. (Jose
Rizal Remo vs. Secretary of Justice Agnes Devanadera December
9, 2016 G.R No. 192925 Perez, J. )

ESTAFA THRU MISAPPROPRIATION UNDER ART.315 PAR.1(B)


Duty to hold in trust

Manzano is not guilty of estafa. Our laws penalize criminal fraud which
causes damage capable of pecuniary estimation through estafa under Article
315 of the Revised Penal Code. In general, the elements of estafa are:
1. That the accused defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence, or (b) by
means of deceit; and
2. That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to
the offended party or third person.

18  |  P a g e  
 
• In this case, the petitioner failed to show that Manzano
personally received the P2,800,000 from petitioner with
the duty to hold it in trust for or to make delivery to the
latter.

• In fact, Rafael admitted that he did not even know who


actually paid the taxes to the BIR, and that Manzano’s
name did not appear in the documents pertaining to the
payment of the capital gains tax and documentary stamp
tax. (Estate of Honorio Poblador, Jr., represented by Rafael Poblador
vs. Rosario Manzano G.R. No. 19239, June 19, 2017 Perlas-Bernabe,
J. )

PARAGRAPH 2(A), ARTICLE 315 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE


Elements of Estafa by means of Deceit

Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code is
committed by any person who defrauds another by using fictitious name, or
falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud.
The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the following: (a) that
there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business of imaginary
transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was
made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
(c) that the offended party relief on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or
fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d)
that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

• In the instant case, the prosecution has established


that appellant defrauded private complainants by
leading them to believe that she has the capacity to
send them to South Korea for work.

19  |  P a g e  
 
• Such misrepresentation came before private
complainants delivered various amounts for purportedly
travel expenses and visa assistance to appellant.

• As a consequence of appellant’s false pretenses, the


private complainants suffered damages as the promised
employment abroad never materialized and the money
they paid were never recovered.

• All the representations were actually false and


fraudulent and thus, the appellant must be made liable
under paragraph 2(a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code. (People of the Philippines vs. Michelle Dela Cruz G.R. No.
214500, June 28, 2017 Peralta, J. )

20  |  P a g e  
 

Вам также может понравиться