This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-07-03 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| x x x[E]stafa can be committed with the attendance of both modes of commission, that is, abuse of confidence and deceit employed against the same victim and causing damage to him. Thus, where an agent deliberately misrepresented to the landowner the real position of the prospective buyer of the land in order to induce said owner to agree to a lower price and, thereafter, the agent sold the land for the higher amount which was actually agreed upon by him and the buyer, and he then clandestinely misappropriated the excess, the crime of estafa was committed under both modes and he could be charged under either. (Emphases supplied)[40] | |||||
|
2006-08-18 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Thus, the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is hardly the appropriate remedy and forum for petitioner to ventilate the issues he has raised, as only jurisdictional issues can be resolved therein. As eloquently expressed by Justice Florenz D. Regalado, speaking for this Court in Iligan v. Court of Appeals:[47] | |||||