Title X Part 2 Case Digest.docx

Estafa through Unfaithfulness or Abuse of Confidence SADDUL V. COURT OF APPEALS The accused was acquitted of the crime of estafa with abuse of confidence for the following reasons: (1) Saddul received the spare parts from AFP in trust for Land Rover which authorized him to sell; (2) Saddul sold them in accordance with the authority given to him; (3) AMPI or Cuevas not being the owner of the property incurred no loss and suffered injury on account of Sadul’s retention of proceeds and; (4) no demand for return was made by AMPI or Cuevas who knew that the spare parts are to be sold for the account of Land Rover. Trusts Receipts ALLIED BANKING V. ORDONEZ The crime of estafa for violation of the Trust Receipts Law is a special offense or mala prohibita. It is a fundamental rule in criminal law that when the crime is punished by a special law, the act alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutes the offense. In the instant case the failure of the entrustee to pay complainant the remaining balance of the value of the goods covered by the trust receipt when the same became due constitutes the offense penalized under Section 13 of P.D. No. 115 Facts: Philippine Blooming Mills (PBM, for short) thru its duly authorized officer, private respondent Alfredo Ching, applied for the issuance of commercial letters of credit with petitioner’s Makati branch to finance the purchase of 500 M/T Magtar Branch Dolomites and one (1) Lot High Fired Refractory Sliding Nozzle Bricks. Allied Bank issued an irrevocable letter of credit in favor of Nikko Industry Co., Ltd. (Nikko) by virtue of which the latter drew four (4) drafts which were accepted by PBM and duly honored and paid by the petitioner bank. To secure payment of the amount covered by the drafts, and in consideration of the transfer by petitioner of the possession of the goods to PBM, the latter as entrustee, thru private respondent, executed four (4) Trust Receipt Agreements with maturity dates on acknowledging petitioner’s ownership of the goods and its (PBM’S) obligation to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, if sold, or to return the same, if unsold within the stated period. PBM defaulted on the payment of the trust receipts.. Despite repeated demands, PBM failed and refused to either turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods or to return the same. Allied Bank filed a criminal complaint against private respondent for violation of PD 115 before the office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal. The Fiscal found a prima facie case for violation of PD 115 on four (4) counts and filed the corresponding information in court. PBM contended that since it was under rehabilitation receivership, no criminal liability can be imputed to Ching. Issue: Whether or not rehabilitation bars the filing of the estafa case against Ching Held: It cannot be denied that the offense was consummated long before the appointment of rehabilitation receivers. The filing of a criminal case against respondent Ching is not only for the purpose of effectuating a collection of a debt but primarily for the purpose of punishing an offender for a crime committed not only against the complaining witness but also against the state. The crime of estafa for violation of the Trust Receipts Law is a special offense or mala prohibita. It is a fundamental rule in criminal law that when the crime is punished by a special law, the act alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutes the offense. In the instant case the failure of the entrustee to pay complainant the remaining balance of the value of the goods covered by the trust receipt when the same became due constitutes the offense penalized under Section 13 of P.D. No. 115; and on the basis of this failure alone, the prosecution has sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case (Res. No. 671, s. 1981; Allied Banking Corporation vs. Reinhard Sagemuller, et al., Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, September 18, 1981). In examination of P.D. 115 shows the growing importance of trust receipts in Philippine business, the need to provide for the rights and obligations of parties to a trust receipt transaction, the study of the problems involved and the action by monetary authorities, and the necessity of regulating the enforcement of rights arising from default or

violations of trust receipt agreements. The legislative intent to meet a pressing need is clearly expressed . LEE V. RODIL FACTS: Lee was the representative of CS Lee Enterprises Inc which opened a letter of credit worth Php 154,711.97 with Philippine Bank of Communications for the purchase of merchandise. 1982: Culture Media received the necessary document and then executed a trust receipt for the said merchandise: Lee obligated herself to hold the merchandise in trust to sell the same in cash for the account of the bank; To account for the proceeds if sold; To return the merchandise to the bank in case of failure to sell the same; Despite repeated demands, she failed to comply with her obligation and instead appropriated the merchandise for her own personal use. 1985: Lee was charged for estafa. She moved to quash the information on the ff grounds: The violation of a trust agreement does not constitute estafa despite an express provision in the Trust Receipts Law characterizing it as estafa. PD 115 is violative of the right that no person shall be imprisoned for non-payment of debt. RTC denied the motion to quash and upheld the constitutionality of the law. MR denied. Hence, the present petition. ISSUE: Does the violation of a trust receipt agreement constitute estafa? YES HELD: PD 115, S3 expressly provides: The failure of an entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents or instruments covered by a trust receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or to return said goods, documents or instruments if they were not sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt shall constitute the crime of estafa… On the case of People v. Cuevo (1981): It was the lower court that dismissed the information and ruled that a violation gives rise to a civil action only. Out of the 11 members of the SC, a majority of 6 justices +CJ were of the view that the violation constitutes estafa, 2 voted otherwise, another 2 inhibited themselves. The view of the dissenting justices prevailed as a result of the want of 1 vote to reverse the order of the lower court. (SC affirmed the LC decision despite the majority view) SC Majority view: The conversion by the trustee in a trust receipt of the proceeds of the sale falls most literally and directly under the provision of estafa thru misappropriation under Art 315 (1)(b) of the RPC. The enactment of the Trust Receipts Law confirmed the said criminal liability. Estafa through False Pretenses, Fraudulent Acts or Means PEOPLE V. ONG In the crime of estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check, deceit and damage are essential elements of the offense and have to be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused-appellant had such knowledge with respect to the subject checks that he indorsed Bouncing Checks NIERRAS V. DACUYCUY Deceit and damage are essential elements in Article 315 (2-d) of the Revised Penal Code, but are not required in Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Under the latter law, mere issuance of a check that is dishonored

gives rise to the presumption of knowledge on the part of the drawer that he issued the same without sufficient funds and hence punishable which is not so under the Penal Code.

that appellant was able to prove the absence of criminal intent in her transactions with Chua. Had her intention been tainted with malice and deceit, appellant would not have exerted extraordinary effort to pay the complainant, given her own business and financial reverses.

LIM LAO V. COURT OF APPEALS VACA V. COURT OF APPEALS Deceit and damage are essential elements in Article 315 (2-d) of the Revised Penal Code, but are not required in Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Under the latter law, mere issuance of a check that is dishonored gives rise to the presumption of knowledge on the part of the drawer that he issued the same without sufficient funds and hence punishable which is not so under the Penal Code. PEOPLE V. OJEDA Facts: Cora Abella Ojeda used to buy fabrics (telas) from complainant Ruby Chua. For the three years approximately she transacted business with Chua, appellant used postdated checks to pay for the fabrics she bought. On November 5, 1983, appellant purchased from Chua various fabrics and textile materials worthP228, 306 for which she issued 22 postdated checks bearing different dates and amounts. The 22 checks were all dishonored. Demands were allegedly made to make good the dishonored checks, to no avail. Estafa and BP 22 charges were thereafter filed against Ojeda. The trial court convicted appellant of the crime of estafa as defined and penalized under paragraph 2(d) of Article315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua. The trial court also convicted appellant of violation of BP 22 for issuing bouncing checks. However, the court a quo held her guilty of only 14 counts out of the 22 bouncing checks issued. Held Under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the RPC, as amended by RA 4885, 20 the elements of estafa are: (1) a check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time it is issued; (2)lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; (3) damage to the payee thereof. Deceit and damage are essential elements of the offense and must be established by satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. Thus, the drawer of the dishonored check is given three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to cover the amount of the check. Otherwise a primafacie presumption of deceit arises. The prosecution failed to prove deceit in this case. The prima facie presumption of deceit was successfully rebutted by appellant’s evidence of good faith, a defense in estafa by postdating a check. Good faith may be demonstrated, for instance, by a debtor’s offer to arrange a payment scheme with his creditor. In this case, the debtor not only made arrangements for payment; as complainant herself categorically stated, the debtor-appellant fully paid the entire amount of the dishonored checks. It must be noted that our Revised Penal Code was enacted to penalize unlawful acts accompanied by evil intent denominated as crimes mala in se. The principal consideration is the existence of malicious intent. There is a concurrence of freedom, intelligence and intent which together make up the "criminal mind "behind the “criminal act." Thus, to constitute a crime, the act must, generally and in most cases, be accompanied by a criminal intent. Actus non facitreum, nisi mens sit rea. No crime is committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent. As we held in Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan:XXX The rule was reiterated in People v. Pacana, although this case involved falsification of public documents and estafa:"Ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime. Actus nonfacitreum, nisi mens sit rea. There can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting. “American jurisprudence echoes the same principle. It adheres to the view that criminal intent in embezzlement is not based on technical mistakes as to the legal effect of a transaction honestly entered into, and there can be no embezzlement if the mind of the person doing the act is innocent or if there is no wrongful purpose. The accused may thus prove that he acted in good faith and that he had no intention to convert the money or goods for his personal benefit. We are convinced

While it may be true that it was the company's accountant who actually prepared the rubber check, petitioners in this case cannot pretend ignorance of the insufficiency of funds since they are the owners and officers of the company. The testimony of petitioner Nieto that after the check in question was dishonored, he instructed their company accountant to prepare a replacement check belies petitioners' claim that they had no hand in the preparation of checks and shows that petitioners were in control of the finances of the company. Other Deceits VILLAFLOR V. COURT OF APPEALS Appellant was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation when, knowing that the car was then owned by the Northern Motors, Inc., still told the complainant that the car was actually owned by him for purposes of and at the time he obtained the loan from the latter. Indubitably, the accused was in bad faith when he obtained the said loan under such deliberate pretenses. VELOSO V. SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: Petitioner (District Auditor/SHED Resident Auditor), along with other officers and employees of the Ministry of Public Highways Central Office, Regional Office No. VII and Siquijor Highway Engineering District (SHED), and some contractors were charged with 46 counts of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents, as defined and penalized under A318 (Other Deceits) and A171(4) in relation to A48 of the RPC Accused were being held liable for defrauding the Government in the amount of P982,207.60 through the illegal and unauthorized issuance of fake Letters of Advice of Allotments (LAAs) and Cash Disbursement Ceilings (CDCs) and tampering and falsifications of General Vouchers (GVs) and supporting documents. Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty as co-principal of the crime charged. His liability emanated from his irregular and improper processing, pre-audit and approval of all the GVs based on irregular/fake supporting papers and he knew that these were illegally funded and improperly charged to the prior year’s obligations. He also engaged in “Splitting” so that he would be the one to pass the GVs in audit when such should have been forwarded to the COA Regional Auditor for action/review Petitioner does not dispute the existence of anomalies in the SHED nor the existence of a conspiracy between the suppliers and certain government officials and employees. Issue: Whether petitioner’s participation in the criminal conspiracy has been established beyond reaonable doubt.  YES Held: Under a COA circular, petitioner is authorized to countersign checks and warrants in amounts not exceeding P50,000 in each case. All GVs exceeding said amount should be processed, pre-audited and approved by the Regional Auditor of COA. In this case, accused district officials split GVs involved in the fake LAA in the amount of P200,000 into 3 separate transactions involving the amounts of P48, 480, P48, 480 and P48,189.60, Otherwise, the Regional COA Auditor, who might be averse to joining the conspiracy, may find that the latter GVs were the result of inexistent programs of work, illegal funding, irregular/non-existent bidding, fictitious deliveries and inspection and other anomalies. Sandiganbayan considered such “Splitting” as an integral and/or essential element/link in the conspiracy to defraud the government

inasmuch as such practices were consciously and deliberately resorted to in order to hide the massive and stupefying misappropriations being undertaken by the accused. Petitioner: Claims innocence and good faith in attaching his signature to the documents. His act was merely ministerial. He could not question the veracity of the prepared LAAs and CDCs since such documents gave him the go-signal to pass them in audit. Sandiganbayan rejected such arguments. Accused cannot rely on the regularity of the documents or on the presumption that their subordinates and/or superiors have acted regularly, since, by the very nature of their duties, they should have known/realized by mere scrutiny of the documents or by the exercise of ordinary diligence that there were irregularities/anomalies reflected on their very faces. Petitioners acts and omissions in auditing the documents which related not only to one but to several transactions clearly established his participation in the conspiracy to defraud the government beyond reaonsable doubt. There need not be direct evidence of the existence and details of the conspiracy, as conspiracy and a conspirator’s participation may be established through circumstantial evidence. Petitioner was tasked with ensuring the regularity of all transactions that are subject to his review. In these cases, he had before him GVs that were patently irregular which he should not have passed in audit, however, he merely turned a blind eye and signed the documents, completing the process that led to the consummation of the crime. He cannot rely on the excuse that his subordinates have already initialed to documents for his signature because his function as their superior is to check on their work and to ensure that they do it correctly. The number of transactions in which petitioner is involved and the magnitude of the amount involved also negate the proposition that he was merely careless/negligent in the performance of his functions. Arson PEOPLE V. MURICIA PEOPLE V. BALUNTONG Malicious Mischief CABALLES V. DAR The private respondent cannot be held criminally liable for malicious mischief in cutting the banana trees because, as an authorized occupant or possessor of the land, and as planter of the banana trees, he owns said crops including the fruits thereof. Thus, an essential element of the crime of malicious mischief, which is "damage deliberately caused to the property of another," is absent because the private respondent merely cut down his own plantings. Exemption from Criminal Liability for Theft, Swindlong, and Malicious Mischief INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES V. PEOPLE