122-123.docx
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View 122-123.docx as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,018
- Pages: 2
CRISANTA B. BONIFACIO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. [G.R. No. 153198, July 11, 2006] FACTS: On March 21, 1996, Ofelia Santos, a businesswoman and a buy-and-sell agent of jewelry, gave petitioner, Crisanta Bonifacio, several jewelry pieces and signed a document acknowledging receipt of the jewelry and agreed to sell the items on commission basis. She also promised to remit the proceeds of the sale or return the unsold items to Santos within 15 days. Petitioner failed to turn over the proceeds of the sale within the given period. She accumulated unpaid and unreturned items on two other instances totaling P244,500. Santos then demanded the petitioner for the payment of the amount thru a letter dated July 25, 1996. Petitioner then gave Santos two checks amounting to P30,000 as partial payment, which was later on bounced for being drawn against insufficient funds and against a closed account. Petitioner was thereafter charged with the crime of estafa under Article 315 (1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in an Information filed before the Regional Trial Court. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the petitioner guilty for the crime of estafa under Article 315 (1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. Upon appeal, the court affirmed the RTC decision with modification as to the penalty. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration maintaining that the element of misappropriation or conversion was not proved, thus her liability should only be civil in nature. The motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the petition for certiorari. ISSUE: Whether the failure to return the pieces of jewelry already constitutes misappropriation or conversion in the crime of estafa? HELD: The Supreme Court found no merit in the petition. 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. The words “convert” and “misappropriate” connote an act of using or disposing of another’s property as if it were one’s own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. Being bound by the agency for the sale of jewelry, the demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the petitioner to account for it are circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. The petitioner admitted that she received the pieces of jewelry on commission and likewise admitted that she failed to return the items or their value on Santos’ demand. The petition was denied by the Supreme Court and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
[G.R. No. 143169. January 21, 2005] JIMMY ANG vs. ELEANOR R. LUCERO FACTS: The complainant, Lucero, an American citizen, is a businesswoman and a native of Pangasinan. On August 8, 1989, she entered into a memorandum of agreement with E. Ganzon, Inc. for the purchase of Condominium Unit located in Makati for P2,417,655.00. As she is a resident of Guam, she appointed by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney, Graciano P. Catenza, Jr. as her attorney-in-fact to manage and administer all her businesses and properties in the Philippines, including the condominium unit. Catenza, however, delegated his authority to the respondent. Lucero claims that respondent Ang took advantage of the trust and confidence she reposed in him when he falsified two documents, namely: letter of authorization and Deed of Assignment. Through the use of the aforementioned fictitious documents, her title was cancelled and in lieu thereof, condominium Certificate of Title No. 23578 was issued in the name of respondent by the Registry of Deeds of Makati City which title he used as a collateral to secure a loan in the amount of P2,000,000.00 from the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC). When she learned of the fraudulent transfer, she executed an affidavit of adverse claim and annotated it on the title on March 21, 1994.
Respondent claims that the questioned documents were prepared with the prior knowledge of complainant and his authority was relayed by her through the telephone. He avers that he had to do this since complainant failed to send money needed to support her business projects and to pay her outstanding obligations. ISSUE: Whether or not Ang is liable for the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (c) of the Revised Penal Code. RULING: Contrary to Angs claims, Lucero sufficiently established the existence of probable cause for estafa in this case.First, the SPA Lucero executed in Catenzas favor is clear. Second, the NBI found the signature on the Authorization Letter a traced forgery. Third, Ang obtained a loan from Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) using the Property as collateral. Fourth, Ang obtained an additional loan of P700,000 from RCBC with the Property as collateral after Lucero annotated an adverse claim on the Propertys certificate of title which was already in Angs name. Fifth, Ang admitted that Lucero signed blank sheets of paper. Ang typed the Deed of Assignment in one of these sheets of paper with Luceros signature. Lastly, Ang refused to render an accounting of his alleged transactions on Luceros behalf despite the latters repeated demands. Considering these circumstances, there is indeed probable cause to hold Ang liable for estafa in this case. Estafa or swindling is committed by defrauding another through any of the means enumerated in Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Under Article 315, paragraph 1(c), estafa is committed by taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank, and by writing any document above such signature in blank, to the prejudice of the offended party or any third person. In this case, Ang admitted typing the Deed of Assignment over Luceros signature in blank. Thereafter, Ang used the Deed of Assignment to transfer the ownership of the Property from Lucero to him. Lucero claims that she was prejudiced by virtue of the Deed of Assignment. However, whether Ang took advantage of Luceros signature is a question that should be presented and resolved during the trial. There is also probable cause that Ang committed estafa by falsification of public document. The Deed of Assignment is a public document since it is notarized.
[G.R. No. 143169. January 21, 2005] JIMMY ANG vs. ELEANOR R. LUCERO FACTS: The complainant, Lucero, an American citizen, is a businesswoman and a native of Pangasinan. On August 8, 1989, she entered into a memorandum of agreement with E. Ganzon, Inc. for the purchase of Condominium Unit located in Makati for P2,417,655.00. As she is a resident of Guam, she appointed by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney, Graciano P. Catenza, Jr. as her attorney-in-fact to manage and administer all her businesses and properties in the Philippines, including the condominium unit. Catenza, however, delegated his authority to the respondent. Lucero claims that respondent Ang took advantage of the trust and confidence she reposed in him when he falsified two documents, namely: letter of authorization and Deed of Assignment. Through the use of the aforementioned fictitious documents, her title was cancelled and in lieu thereof, condominium Certificate of Title No. 23578 was issued in the name of respondent by the Registry of Deeds of Makati City which title he used as a collateral to secure a loan in the amount of P2,000,000.00 from the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC). When she learned of the fraudulent transfer, she executed an affidavit of adverse claim and annotated it on the title on March 21, 1994.
Respondent claims that the questioned documents were prepared with the prior knowledge of complainant and his authority was relayed by her through the telephone. He avers that he had to do this since complainant failed to send money needed to support her business projects and to pay her outstanding obligations. ISSUE: Whether or not Ang is liable for the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (c) of the Revised Penal Code. RULING: Contrary to Angs claims, Lucero sufficiently established the existence of probable cause for estafa in this case.First, the SPA Lucero executed in Catenzas favor is clear. Second, the NBI found the signature on the Authorization Letter a traced forgery. Third, Ang obtained a loan from Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) using the Property as collateral. Fourth, Ang obtained an additional loan of P700,000 from RCBC with the Property as collateral after Lucero annotated an adverse claim on the Propertys certificate of title which was already in Angs name. Fifth, Ang admitted that Lucero signed blank sheets of paper. Ang typed the Deed of Assignment in one of these sheets of paper with Luceros signature. Lastly, Ang refused to render an accounting of his alleged transactions on Luceros behalf despite the latters repeated demands. Considering these circumstances, there is indeed probable cause to hold Ang liable for estafa in this case. Estafa or swindling is committed by defrauding another through any of the means enumerated in Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Under Article 315, paragraph 1(c), estafa is committed by taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank, and by writing any document above such signature in blank, to the prejudice of the offended party or any third person. In this case, Ang admitted typing the Deed of Assignment over Luceros signature in blank. Thereafter, Ang used the Deed of Assignment to transfer the ownership of the Property from Lucero to him. Lucero claims that she was prejudiced by virtue of the Deed of Assignment. However, whether Ang took advantage of Luceros signature is a question that should be presented and resolved during the trial. There is also probable cause that Ang committed estafa by falsification of public document. The Deed of Assignment is a public document since it is notarized.
