This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-08-06 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The falsification of a public, official, or commercial document may be a means of committing Estafa, because before the falsified document is actually utilized to defraud another, the crime of Falsification has already been consummated, damage or intent to cause damage not being an element of the crime of falsification of public, official or commercial document. In other words, the crime of falsification has already existed. Actually utilizing that falsified public, official or commercial document to defraud another is estafa. But the damage is caused by the commission of Estafa, not by the falsification of the document. Therefore, the falsification of the public, official or commercial document is only a necessary means to commit the estafa.[59] | |||||
|
2013-03-06 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, San Mateo's acquittal does not entail the extinguishment of her civil liability for the dishonored checks.[13] An acquittal based on lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not preclude the award of civil damages.[14] For this reason, the trial court's directive for San Mateo to pay the civil liability in the amount of P134,275.00 representing the total value of the 11 checks plus 12% interest per annum from the time the said sum became due and demandable until fully paid, stands. | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Tobias was charged with estafa through falsification of public document the elements of which are: (a) the accused uses a fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or employs other similar deceits; (b) such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and (d) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[36] It is required that the false statement or fraudulent representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive that induced the complainant to part with the thing.[37] | |||||
|
2011-01-31 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In this case, the prosecution merely presented a copy of the demand letter, together with the registry receipt and the return card, allegedly sent to petitioner. However, there was no attempt to authenticate or identify the signature on the registry return card.[18] Receipts for registered letters and return receipts do not by themselves prove receipt; they must be properly authenticated to serve as proof of receipt of the letter, claimed to be a notice of dishonor.[19] To be sure, the presentation of the registry card with an unauthenticated signature, does not meet the required proof beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner received such notice. It is not enough for the prosecution to prove that a notice of dishonor was sent to the drawee of the check. The prosecution must also prove actual receipt of said notice, because the fact of service provided for in the law is reckoned from receipt of such notice of dishonor by the drawee of the check.[20] The burden of proving notice rests upon the party asserting its existence. Ordinarily, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to prove notice. In criminal cases, however, the quantum of proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, for B.P. Blg. 22 cases, there should be clear proof of notice.[21] Moreover, for notice by mail, it must appear that the same was served on the addressee or a duly authorized agent of the addressee. From the registry receipt alone, it is possible that petitioner or his authorized agent did receive the demand letter.[22] Possibilities, however, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.[23] The consistent rule is that penal statutes have to be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.[24] The absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily deprives the accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution.[25] As there is insufficient proof that petitioner received the notice of dishonor, the presumption that he had knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot arise.[26] | |||||
|
2009-10-12 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It has been held that whenever a person carries out on a public, official, or commercial document any of the acts enumerated in Art. 171 of the RPC as a necessary means to perpetrate another crime, such as estafa or malversation, a complex crime is formed by the two crimes.[12] | |||||