Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CHARLIE COMILA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 184058 2010-03-10	PEOPLE v. MELISSA CHUA CARPIO MORALES, J.
[I]llegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while estafa is malum in se. In the first, the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction. In the second, such an intent is imperative. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, is committed by any person who defrauds another by using fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud.[12] (emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 181475 2009-04-07	PEOPLE v. LARRY 'LAURO' DOMINGO CARPIO MORALES, J.
As to the conviction of appellant for two counts of estafa, it is well established that a person may be charged and convicted of both illegal recruitment and estafa. People v. Comila,[10] enlightens:x x x The reason therefor is not hard to discern: illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while estafa is malum in se. In the first, the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction. In the second, such an intent is imperative. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, is committed by any person who defrauds another by using fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 179907 2009-02-12	ARLENE N. LAPASARAN v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
Here, it has been sufficiently proven that petitioner represented herself to Menardo as capable of sending him to South Korea for employment, even if she did not have the authority or license for the purpose. Undoubtedly, it was this misrepresentation that induced Menardo to part with his hard-earned money in exchange for what he thought was a promising future abroad. The act of petitioner clearly constitutes estafa under the above-quoted provision.[20]