This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2000-03-30 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| necessarily fails. This Court has ruled that when the relation is purely that of debtor and creditor, the debtor cannot be held liable for the crime of estafa, under the above quoted provision, by merely refusing to pay or by denying the indebtedness.[17] The reason behind this rule is simple. In order that a person can be convicted of estafa under Article 315, par. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code, it must be proven that he has the obligation to deliver or return the same money, goods or personal property that he has received. The obligation to deliver exactly the same money, that is, bills or coins, is non-existent in a simple loan of money because in the latter, the borrower acquires ownership of the money borrowed.[18] Being the owner, the borrower can dispose of the thing borrowed and his act will not be considered misappropriation thereof.[19] | |||||