This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2010-02-11 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The phrase "necessary means" does not connote indispensable means for if it did, then the offense as a "necessary means" to commit another would be an indispensable element of the latter and would be an ingredient thereof.[55] In People v. Salvilla,[56] the phrase "necessary means" merely signifies that one crime is committed to facilitate and insure the commission of the other.[57] In this case, the crime of falsification of public document, the SPA, was such a "necessary means" as it was resorted to by Sato to facilitate and carry out more effectively his evil design to swindle his mother-in-law. In particular, he used the SPA to sell the Tagaytay properties of Manolita to unsuspecting third persons. | |||||