Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CORA ABELLA OJEDA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 199150 2012-02-06	CARMINA G. BROKMANN v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
The petitioner prays for her acquittal for the prosecution's failure to prove the element of deceit. She argues that her actions prior to, during and after the filing of the estafa case against her negated deceit, ill-motive and/or bad faith to abscond with her obligation to the private complainant. She cites the cases of People v. Singson[6] and People v. Ojeda[7] where the Court acquitted the accused for the failure of the prosecution to prove the element of deceit.
	GR No. 158312 2008-11-14	JOHN DY v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
More significantly, we are not swayed by petitioner's arguments that the single incident of dishonor and his absence when the checks were delivered belie fraud. Indeed damage and deceit are essential elements of the offense and must be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction.[20] Deceit as an element of estafa is a specie of fraud. It is actual fraud which consists in any misrepresentation or contrivance where a person deludes another, to his hurt. There is deceit when one is misled -- by guile, trickery or by other means -- to believe as true what is really false.[21]
	GR No. 158312 2008-11-14	JOHN DY v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
In a number of cases,[25] the Court has considered good faith as a defense to a charge of estafa by postdating a check. This good faith may be manifested by making arrangements for payment with the creditor and exerting best efforts to make good the value of the checks. In the instant case petitioner presented no proof of good faith. Noticeably absent from the records is sufficient proof of sincere and best efforts on the part of petitioner for the payment of the value of the check that would constitute good faith and negate deceit.
	GR No. 166502 2008-10-17	FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
To stress, petitioner should not be held answerable for the act charged absent a felonious intent. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent.[17]
	GR No. 165275 2008-09-23	GORETTI ONG v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
Under paragraph 2(d), if there is no proof of notice of dishonor, knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot be presumed, and unless there is a priori intent, which is hard to determine and may not be inferred from mere failure to comply with a promise, no Estafa can be deemed to exist. So holds the 2004 case of People v. Ojeda.[14]
	GR NO. 168217 2006-06-27	JOY LEE RECUERDO v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
On August 23, 2004, the CA rendered judgment affirming with modification the decision of the RTC as to the penalty meted on the appellant. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration insisting that based on the evidence on record, out of the 17 subject checks, nine were honored by the drawee banks. Moreover, she made partial payments of the amounts of the subject checks while the case was pending in the CA. Contrary to the finding of the trial court and the appellate courts that she acted with deceit when she drew and delivered the checks in payment of the pieces of jewelry she purchased from the private complainant, she in fact acted in good faith; hence, should be acquitted based on the decision of this Court in People v. Ojeda.[5] The CA denied the motion on May 20, 2005.
	GR NO. 154159 2005-03-31	PEOPLE v. ALOMA REYES PUNO, J.
damage to the payee thereof.[29]
	GR NO. 134120 2005-01-17	PEOPLE v. LEA SAGAN JULIANO AZCUNA, J.
The elements of Estafa are as follows: (1) The offender has postdated or issued a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or issuance; (2) at the time of postdating or issuance of said check, the offender has no funds in the bank or the funds deposited were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check; (3) the payee has been defrauded.[14] Damage and deceit are essential elements of the offense and must be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction, while the false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to, or simultaneous with, the issuance of the bad check.[15] The drawer of the dishonored check is given three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to cover the amount of the check, otherwise, a prima facie presumption of deceit arises. [16]
	GR No. 157039 2004-10-01	PEOPLE v. JOSEFINA M. DIMALANTA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Damage and deceit are essential elements of the offense and must be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. The false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with the issuance of the bad check.[15] Thus, the drawer of the dishonored check is given three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to cover the amount of the check. Otherwise a prima facie presumption of deceit arises.[16]