Professional Documents
Culture Documents
As fraud involves acts or spoken or written words by a party to mislead another into
believing a fact-to be true when it is not in fact that express warranty in the Deed of
Absolute Sale covering the lot in question (Exhibit B) that said land is "free from all
liens and encumbrances" constitutes the false representation or deceit and one of
the elements giving rise to the crime of estafa. (People vs. Galsim 107 Phil. 303).
That on or about the 16th day of June, 1994, at Puerto Princesa City, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping one another, after having received the
amount of P309,000.00 as payment of the 99 tanks of refilled fire extinguisher (sic)
from the City Government of Puerto Princesa, through deceit, fraud and
misrepresentation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud
one Chito Federico in the following manner, to wit: said accused, well knowing that
Chito Federico agent of LM Industrial Commercial Enterprises is entitled to 50%
commission of the gross sales as per their Dealership Contract or the amount
of P154,500.00 as his commission for his sale of 99 refilled fire extinguishers
worth P309,000.00, and accused once in possession of said amount of P309,000.00
misappropriate, misapply and convert the amount of P154,500.00 for their own
personal use and benefit and despite repeated demands made upon them by
complainant to deliver the amount ofP154,500.00, accused failed and refused and
still fails and refuses to do so, to the damage and prejudice of said Chito Federico in
the amount of P154,500.00, Philippine Currency. [20]
After holding trial, the RTC rendered its Judgment on 05 May 1997 finding
petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals of the crime of estafa
defined and penalized in Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. Estafa, under
the said provision, is committed by
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another by any of the
means mentioned hereinbelow . . .
In the same Judgment, the RTC expounded on its finding of guilt, thus
For the afore-quoted provision of the Revised Penal Code to be committed, the
following requisites must concur:
This Court finds the instant Petition impressed with merit. Absent herein are two
essential elements of the crime of estafa by misappropriation or conversion
under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code, namely: (1) That
money, goods or other personal property be 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;
and (2) That there be a misappropriation or conversion of such money or
property by the offender.
The elements of estafa or swindling under paragraph 2 (a) of Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code18 are the following:
3. 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 the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means.
4. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. 19
It is not true that Honesta did not suffer any damage because she merely borrowed the
money, and that she showed no proof that she issued a check to pay said debt. 22 The
prosecution clearly showed that Bichara had sent a demand letter to Honesta asking for
payment.23 Honesta had borrowed P322,500 from Bichara for which she assuredly must
repay. This constitutes business loses to her and, in our view, actual damages as
contemplated under Article 315, par. 2 (a).
in payment of various fabrics and textile materials all in the total amount
of P228,306.60 which the said accused ordered or purchased from the said RUBY
CHUA on the same day; that upon presentation of the said checks to the bank for
payment, the same were dishonored and payment thereof refused for the reason
Account Closed, and said accused, notwithstanding due notice to her by the said
Ruby Chua of such dishonor of the said checks, failed and refused and still fails and
refuses to deposit the necessary amount to cover the amount of the checks to the
damage and prejudice of the said RUBY CHUA in the aforesaid amount
of P228,306.60, Philippine currency.
That on or about the first week of November 1983, in the City of Manila, Philippines,
the said accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously make or draw
and issue to RUBY CHUA to apply on account or for value Rizal Commercial
Banking Corp. Check No. 041784 dated November 18, 1983 payable to Ruby Chua in
the amount of P5,392.34, said accused well knowing that at the time of issue
he/she/they did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank or payment
of such check in full upon its presentment, which check, when presented for payment
within ninety (90) days from the date thereof was subsequently dishonored by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds, and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor,
said accused failed to pay said complainant the amount of said check or to make
arrangement for full payment of the same within five (5) banking days after receiving
said notice.
Chua later presented to the bank for payment check no. 033550 dated November 5, 1983 in the
amount of P17,100[3] but it was dishonored due to Account Closed.[4] On April 10, 1984, Chua
deposited the rest of the checks but all were dishonored for the same reason.[5] Demands were
allegedly made on the appellant to make good the dishonored checks, to no avail.
check is given three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to cover the
amount of the check. Otherwise a prima facie presumption of deceit arises.
Estafa Through Issuance of Unfunded Checks
The crime of Estafa is punished under the Revised Penal Code. One can be held guilty for Estafa by means of
issuing a bouncing check with the use of false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud:
“By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank,
or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. (Article 315(2)(d) of the
Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 4885)”
cannot be held liable for estafa because the check was issued in payment of a pre-existing
debt. As mentioned earlier, estafa through the issuance of a bouncing check can be
committed only if the check was issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time
the check was issued. Note however that while there is no estafa, nevertheless, Marian can
be held liable for another crime, which will be discussed below.