Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 173473 2008-12-17	PEOPLE v. BETH TEMPORADA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
People v. Romero,[38] De Carlos v. Court of Appeals,[39] Salazar v. People,[40] People v. Dinglasan[41] and, by analogy, People v. Dela Cruz[42] do not support the formula being proposed by the dissent.
	GR No. 158312 2008-11-14	JOHN DY v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
Before an accused can be held liable for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885,[12] the following elements must concur: (1) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee thereof.[13] These elements are present in the instant case.