This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2006-06-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The RTC used the case of Manahan, Jr. v. Court of Appeals[30] to support its position that even in the absence of a fiduciary relationship, the petitioners still had the civil obligation to return and deliver to private complainant Federico his commission. The RTC failed to discern the substantial differences in the factual background of the Manahan case from the present Petition. The Manahan case involved the lease of a dump truck. Although a contract of lease may not be fiduciary in character, the lessee clearly had the civil obligation to return the truck to the lessor at the end of the lease period; and failure of the lessee to return the truck as provided for in the contract may constitute estafa. The phrase "or any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same" refers to contracts of bailment, such as, contract of lease of personal property, contract of deposit, and commodatum, wherein juridical possession of the thing was transferred to the lessee, depositary or borrower, and wherein the latter is obligated to return the same thing.[31] | |||||
|
2005-11-29 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Eduardo appealed the decision to the CA. He alleged that he was not criminally liable for bigamy because when he married the private complainant, he did so in good faith and without any malicious intent. He maintained that at the time that he married the private complainant, he was of the honest belief that his first marriage no longer subsisted. He insisted that conformably to Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code, there must be malice for one to be criminally liable for a felony. He was not motivated by malice in marrying the private complainant because he did so only out of his overwhelming desire to have a fruitful marriage. He posited that the trial court should have taken into account Article 390 of the New Civil Code. To support his view, the appellant cited the rulings of this Court in United States v. Peñalosa[11] and Manahan, Jr. v. Court of Appeals.[12] | |||||
|
2005-11-29 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| For one to be criminally liable for a felony by dolo, there must be a confluence of both an evil act and an evil intent. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.[35] | |||||
|
2005-06-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same to private complainant Federico, thus, the RTC correctly found that no fiduciary relationship existed between petitioners and private complainant Federico. A fiduciary relationship between the complainant and the accused is an essential element of estafa by misappropriation or conversion, without which the accused could not have committed estafa.[29] The RTC used the case of Manahan, Jr. v. Court of Appeals[30] to support its position that even in the absence of a fiduciary relationship, the petitioners still had the civil obligation to return and deliver to private complainant Federico his | |||||