Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Agustin then learned that Lucia was selling their personal property
which prompted him to ask Ramon Valdez, his son with
Presentacion, to retrieve whatever was left in their house.
FACTS.
When Peamante (witness) arrived home from work, around 2:45am, he
saw a person wearing a black, long-sleeved shirt and black pants and
holding something while leaving the house/parlor of Elmer Duque aka
Barbie (victim).
There was a light at the left side of the house/parlor of Barbie, his favorite
haircutter, so Peamante was able to see the face of Chavez (accused).
The following day, Barbie was found dead, due to stab wounds, in the
parlor and the place was in disarray.
In a line-up to identify the person he saw leaving Barbies house/parlor that
early morning of October 28, 2006, Peamante immediately pointed to
and identified Chavez and thereafter executed his written statement.
Chavez was charged with robbery with homicide.
LC: Guilty as charged, based on circumstantial evidence.
CA: Affirmed.
ISSUE & RATIO.
Whether or not Chavez is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of robbery with homicide. NO.
Robbery
What is imperative and essential for a conviction for the crime of
robbery with homicide is for the prosecution to establish the offenders
intent to take personal property before the killing, regardless of the time
when the homicide is actually carried out. In cases when the prosecution
failed to conclusively prove that
homicide was committed for the purpose of robbing the victim, no accused
can be convicted of robbery with homicide.
The circumstantial evidence relied on by the lower courts do not
satisfactorily establish an original criminal design by Chavez to commit
robbery.
At most, the intent to take personal property was mentioned by
Chavezs mother in her statement as follows: Na sinabi niya sa akin na
wala siyang intensyon na patayin [sic] si Barbie kundi ay pagnakawan
lamang. However, this statement is considered as hearsay, with no
2.
3.
4.
The alibi of Chavez still places him at the scene of the crime that
early morning of October 28, 2006. This court has considered
motive as one of the factors in determining the presence of an
intent to kill, and a confrontation with the victim immediately prior
to the victims death has been considered as circumstantial
evidence for homicide.
The number of stab wounds inflicted on Barbie strengthens an
intention to kill and ensures his death.
Peamantes positive identification of Chavez as the person leaving
Barbies house that early morning of October 28, 2006.
The medico-legals testimony establishing Barbies time of death
as 12 hours prior to autopsy at 1:00 p.m., thus, narrowing the time
of death to approximately 1:00 a.m. of the same day, October 28,
2006.
DECISION.
Judgment by lower court is MODIFIED. Chavez is GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the separate and distinct crime of HOMICIDE.
People v Arnel Balute
GR 212932 Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Facts:
At around 8 oclock in the evening of March 22, 2002, SPO1 Raymundo B.
Manaois (SPO1 Manaois) was on board his owner-type jeepney with his wife
Cristita and daughter Blesilda, and was traversing Road 10, Tondo, Manila.
While the vehicle was on a stop position at a lighted area due to heavy
traffic, two (2) male persons, later on identified as Balute and a certain Leo
Blaster (Blaster), suddenly appeared on either side of the jeepney, with
Balute poking a gun at the side of SPO1 Manaois and saying putangina,
ilabas mo! Thereafter, Balute grabbed SPO1 Manaoiss mobile phone from
the latters chest pocket and shot him at the left side of his torso. SPO1
Manaois reacted by drawing his own firearm and alighting from his vehicle,
but he was unable to fire at the assailants as he fell to the ground. He was
taken to Mary Johnston Hospital where he died despite undergoing surgical
operation and medical intervention
In his defense, Balute denied having any knowledge of the charges against
him. He maintained, inter alia, that on March 22, 2002, he was at the shop
of a certain Leticia Nicol (Nicol) wherein he worked as a pedicab welder
from 8:00 oclock in the morning until 10:00 oclock in the evening, and did
not notice any untoward incident that day as he was busy working the
entire time. Nicol corroborated Balutes story, and imputed liability on
Blaster and a certain Intoy.
Issue: WON Balute is guilty of robbery with homicide
Held: Yes. In the instant case, the CA correctly upheld the RTCs finding
that the prosecution was able to establish the fact that Balute poked his
gun at SPO1 Manaois, took the latters mobile phone, and thereafter, shot
him, resulting in his death despite surgical and medical intervention.
This is buttressed by Cristita and Blesildas positive identification of Balute
as the one who committed the crime as opposed to the latters denial and
alibi which was correctly considered by both the RTC and the CA as weak
and self-serving, as it is well-settled that alibi and denial are outweighed
by positive identification that is categorical, consistent and untainted by
any ill motive on the part of the [eyewitnesses] testifying on the matter.
This is especially true when the eyewitnesses are the relatives of the victim
such as Cristita and Blesilda who are the wife and daughter of SPO1
Manaois, respectively since the natural interest of witnesses, who are
relatives of the victim, in securing the conviction of the guilty would
actually deter them from implicating persons other than the true culprits.
Eduardo Magsumbol v. People
G.R. No. 207175
Facts:
Petitioner Magsumbol, together with Erasmo Magsino (Mogsino). Apolonio
Inanoria (Jnanoria), and Bonifacio Ramirez (Ramirez). vvas charged with
the crime of Theft.
In the morning of February 1, 2002, Caringal, the overseer of a one-hectare
unregistered parcel of land located in Candelaria, Quezon, and co-owned
by Menandro, saw the four accused, along with seven others, cutting
down the coconut trees on the said property. Later, the men turned the
felled trees into coco lumber. Caringal did not attempt to stop the men
from cutting down the coconut trees because he was outnumbered.
Instead, Caringal left the site and proceeded toSan Pablo City to inform
Menandro about the incident.
All the accused vehemently denied the charges against them. Ramirez and
Magsumbol claimed that only the coconut trees which stood within the
land owned by Atanacio, a relative of the private complainant, were cut
down on that morning of February 1, 2002. Ramirez added that he was a
coco lumber trader and that Atanacio offered to sell the coconut trees
planted on his lot. Magsumbol claimed that he took no part in the felling
of the coconut trees but merely supervised the same
Inanoria likewise denied participation in the cutting down of the coconut
treesbut confirmed the presence of Magsumbol and Magsino at the site to
supervise the accomplishment of the work being done thereat. Inanoria
corroborated the narration of Magsumbol and Ramirez that all the felled
trees were planted inside the lot owned by Atanacio. Inanoria intimated
that Menandro included him in the complaint for theft due to his refusal
to accede to latters request for him to testify against his co-accused in
relation to the present criminal charge
Ruling of RTC: Prosecution was able to establish with certitude the guilt of
all the accused for the crime of simple theft. The RTC rejected the
defense of denial invoked by the accused in the face of positive
identification by Caringal pointing to them as the perpetrators of the
crime
Ruling of CA: Sustained the findings of facts and conclusions of law by the
RTC and upheld the judgment of conviction rendered against the accused.
Issue: WON MALICE AND INTENT TO GAIN, AS ELEMENTS OF THE
CRIME OF THEFT, ARE PRESENT IN THE CASE AT HAND
Held: To warrant a conviction under the aforecited provision for theft of
damaged property, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable that the
accused maliciously damaged the property belonging to another and,
thereafter, removed or used the fruits or object thereof, with intent to gain.
Apart from the bare allegations of these witnesses, no concrete and
competent evidence was adduced to substantiate their respective
submissions. In view of such conflicting claims and considering the meager
evidence on hand, the Court cannot determine with certainty the owner of
the 33 felled coconut trees. The uncertainty of the exact location of the
coconut trees negates the presenceof the criminal intent to gain. At any
rate, granting arguendo that the said coconut trees were within
Menandros land, no malice or criminal intent could be rightfully attributed
to Magsumbol and his co-accused.
Ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for a crime to exist.
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. There can be no crime when the
criminal mind is wanting. As a general rule, ignorance or mistake as to
particular facts, honest and real, will exempt the doer from felonious
responsibility. The exception of course is neglect in the discharge of duty or
indifference to consequences, which is equivalent to criminal intent, for in
this instance, the element of malicious intent is supplied by the element
ofnegligence and imprudence
The criminal mind is indeed wanting in the situation where Magsumbol and
his co-accused even sought prior permission from Brgy. Captain Arguelles
to cut down the coconut trees which was done openly and during broad
daylight effectively negated malice and criminal intent on their part. It
defies reason that the accused would still approach the barangay captain if
their real intention was tosteal the coconut trees of Menandro. Besides,
criminals would usually execute their criminal activities clandestinely or
through stealth or strategy to avoid detection of the commission of a crime
or a wrongdoing.
Here, that quantum of proof has not been satisfied. The prosecution
miserably failed to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt that
Magsumbol, together with his co-accused, damaged the property or
Menandro with malice and deliberate intent and then removed the felled
coconut trees from the premises.
NATURE
PETITIONERS
RESPONDENT
FACTS.
Tangian was a garbage truck driver for the city government of Iligan City,
Lanao del Norte. Yongco and Laojan were security guards assigned to
guard the City Engineers Office (CEO). Yongco and Laojan worked at
different shifts; the former at a later time and the latter at an earlier
time.
On April 15, 2005, after the shift of Laojan, he gave 4 gate passes to
Yongco, allegedly covering waste materials withdrawn during the earlier
shift. These gate passes were required as standard procedure in taking
out materials from the CEO premises.
On April 16, 2005, around 1:30 a.m., at the request of Tangian, Pablo
Salodsod, a garbage collector for the city government, accompanied him
to the CEO.
At the garage of the CEO, Salodsod and his fellow garbage collectors were
ordered by Tangian and Yongco, the guard on duty at that time, to load
car parts, which were allegedly waste items, on the truck driven by
Tangian.
After loading the car parts, Tangian and Salodsod went to the Delfin Junk
Store to unload them. Tangian did not give the gate pass required to take
out something from the CEO premises. Yongco did not demand for the
same on the pretext that there was another guard on duty in the guard
house to get the gate pass.
The items were then unloaded in front of the junk store. Before the truck
left the junk store, Laojan, who was at the junk store, gave a thumbs-up
to Tangian. Laojan then covered up the unloaded items with a sack.
The following morning, the brother-in-law of Laojan, a worker at the junk
store, took the items inside the store.
Upon conducting investigations, the stolen items were:
o 1 Nissan transmission;
o 1 unit boom;
o 1 Nissan I-beam; and
o 1 differential of Tamaraw.
RTC: Guilty of qualified theft; ruled that the 4 gate passes were used as
coverup for the actual withdrawal of the stolen items.
Defense: No conspiracy
Laojan: He was not present at the time of the taking; the mere giving
of a thumbs-up does not amount to conspiracy.
NATURE
PETITIONER
RESPONDENT
FACTS.
Danilo Tangcoy, private complainant, and Lito Corpuz, petitioner, met at
the Admiral Royale Casino in Olongapo City sometime in 1990.
Tangcoy was then engaged in the business of lending money to casino
players and, upon hearing that Tangcoy had some pieces of jewelry for
sale, Corpuz approached him on May 2, 1991 at the same casino and
offered to sell the said pieces of jewelry on commission basis.
Tangcoy agreed, and as a consequence, he turned over to petitioner the
following items: an 18k diamond ring for men; a woman's bracelet; one
(1) men's necklace and another men's bracelet, with an aggregate value
of P98,000.00, as evidenced by a receipt of even date.
They both agreed that petitioner shall remit the proceeds of the sale,
and/or, if unsold, to return the same items, within a period of 60 days.
The period expired without petitioner remitting the proceeds of the sale
or returning the pieces of jewelry. When Tongcoy was able to meet
petitioner, the latter promised the former that he will pay the value of
the said items entrusted to him, but to no avail.
A criminal complaint for estafa was filed against Corpuz.
On the prosecution, it was established that Tongcoy and Corpuz were
collecting agents of Antonio Balajadia, who is engaged in the financing
business of extending loans to Base employees. For every collection
made, they earn a commission. Petitioner denied having transacted any
business with Tongcoy.
ng Congress. Basta, its long kasi kaya I didnt include it here. Check nyo
nalang powz.
DECISION.
Petition denied.
People v Angelita Daud
GR No. 197539 June 2, 2014 J. Leonardo-De Castro
Facts:
Gallemit, Daud , and Hanelita were charged with illegal recruitment in large
scale and estafa. They were said to be consipiring with eachother from
February 5, 2001- August 2001 in Paranaque to represent themselves to
have the capacity to transport Filipino workers for employment abroad.
They were charged with 8 counts of estafa filed by De Guzman et. Al. They
got money from De Guzman for the payment of the allged processing of
their employment abroad however, this did not happen. RTC: Found them
guilty
In the CA: De Guzman claimed that he was introduced by his patient to
Daud. Daud encouraged him to apply for work abroad and convinced him
that she will be able to send him to Korea. She also invited him to visit her
office in Taft Ave. A month later De Guzman together with the other
complainants went to the said office They were shown pictures of Daud
with Korean employees which proved that she sends workers abroad. They
decided to go through with the application and paid Daud several amounts.
Their departure did not happen and when they went to the Korean
Embassy it was said that their visa was fake and the POEA confirmed that
Green Pastures was not registered as an agency licensed to recruit
employees for abroad.
Defense of Gallemit: There can be no Estafa because there is no element of
deceit
Issue: WON there was Estafa
Held: YES. It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted
separately of illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042, in relation to
the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a)of the Revised
Penal Code. He acted in conspiracy with Daud and Hanelita to mislead
private complainants into believing that appellant and his co-accused, for a
fee, can deploy private complainants abroad for employment. He gave the
complainants the job order for Korea and encouraged them to apply for
work abroad. The representations made by appellant and his co-accused to
private complainants were actually false and fraudulent, not only because
they were not duly authorized to undertake recruitment for overseas
employment, but also because there were no actual jobs waiting for private
complainants in Korea and private complainants never had a chance to
leave for work abroad.
FACTS.
Meneses is a Cash Custodian of Seven Sphere Enterprises (Seven Sphere)
while the accused-petitioner Tria was one of the consignees.
On March 8, 2000, the petitioner received on consignment from Seven
Sphere 22 pieces of jewelry valued at P47,440 subject to the condition
that she will remit the proceeds of the sale thereof and return any unsold
pieces within 6 days.
The petitioner returned 8 unsold pieces of the jewelry valued at P16,380,
leaving a balance of P31,060. To cover the balance, the petitioner issued
4 Banco Filipino postdated checks, which were dishonored by the issuing
bank for the reason: account closed.
Petitioner returned 3 pieces of jewelry valued at P7,684.50 thus leaving the
unpaid balance of P23,375.50.
Despite receipt of the letter of demand, however, the petitioner failed to
pay.
RTC: petitioner guilty of estafa, under Article 315(1)(b) of the RPC, for
misappropriating the proceeds of the sale of the jewelry consigned to her
by Seven Sphere.
CA: Affirmed.
ISSUE & RATIO.
Whether or not Tria is guilty of estafa, under Article 315(1)(b) of
the RPC. YES.
The elements of estafa under this provision are:
1. That the money, good or other personal property is received by the
offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any
other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the
same;
2. That there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or
property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt;
3. That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice
of another; and
4. That there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender.
The first, third and fourth elements are immediately discernible from
the Receipt of Goods on Consignment, showing that the petitioner
received pieces of jewelry on consignment from Seven Sphere with the
obligation to return the unsold pieces or remit the sale proceeds of the sold
items. xxx Seven Sphere was prejudiced in the amount of P23,370.00 after
the petitioner failed to return the remaining eleven (11) pieces of jewelry
consigned to her or their value.
The second element, misappropriation or conversion, is deducible from
the petitioners failure to return the last eleven (11) pieces of jewelry
entrusted to her.
Neither can we lend credence to the petitioners claim that her failure
to account for the jewelry subject of this indictment was because she sold
the same on credit. Such act directly contravenes the explicit terms of the
authority granted to her because the consignment transaction with Seven
Sphere prohibited her from selling the jewelry on credit: the consignee
shall have no right or privilege to sell the goods on credit. By selling the
jewelry on credit, the petitioner used the property for a purpose other than
that agreed upon. The words convert and misappropriate connote an
act of using or disposing of anothers property as if it were ones own or
devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon.
DECISION.
CA decision AFFIRMED.
Leonora B. Rimando v. Spouses Aldaba and People of the
Philippines
G.R. No 203583 / October 13, 2014 Justice Perlas Bernabe
Estafa / B.P. 22
Facts
Issue
WON Rimando is still civilly liable in the estafa case despite her
acquittal and exoneration from civil liability in the BP 22 cases?
Held
YES. Rimandos acquittal and subsequent exoneration in the BP
22 cases had no effect in the estafa case, even if both cases were founded
on the same factual circumstances. In Nierras v. Judge Dacuycuy, the Court
laid down the fundamental differences between BP 22 and estafa, to wit:
What petitioner failed to mention in his argument is the fact that deceit
and damage are essential elements in Article 315 (2-d) Revised Penal
Code, but are not required in Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Under the latter
law, mere issuance of a check that is dishonored gives rise to the
presumption of knowledge on the part of the drawer that he issued the
same without sufficient funds and hence punishable which is not so under
the Penal Code. Other differences between the two also include the
following: (1) a drawer of a dishonored check may be convicted under
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 even if he had issued the same for a preexisting
obligation, while under Article 315 (2-d) of the Revised Penal Code, such
circumstance negates criminal liability; (2) specific and different penalties
are imposed in each of the two offenses; (3) estafa is essentially a crime
against property, while violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 is principally
a crime against public interest as it does injury to the entire banking
system; (4) violations of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code are mala in
se, while those of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 are mala prohibita.
Essentially, while a BP 22 case and an estafa case may be rooted from an
identical set of facts, they nevertheless present different causes of action,
which, under the law, are considered "separate, distinct, and independent"
from each other. Therefore, both cases can proceed to their final
adjudication both as to their criminal and civil aspects subject to the
prohibition on double recovery. Perforce, a ruling in a BP 22 case
concerning the criminal and civil liabilities of the accused cannot be given
any bearing whatsoever in the criminal and civil aspects of a related estafa
case, as in this instance.
NATURE
PETITIONER
RESPONDENT
Appeal
People of the Philippines
Palmy Tibayan and Rico Z. Puerto
FACTS.
Tibayan Group Investment Company, Inc. (TGICI) is an open-end
investment company registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) on September 21, 2001.
Sometime in 2002, the SEC conducted an investigation on TGICI and its
subsidiaries. In the course thereof, it discovered that TGICI was selling
securities to the public without a registration statement in violation of
Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as The Securities Regulation
Code, and that TGICI submitted a fraudulent Treasurers Affidavit before
the SEC. Resultantly, on October 21, 2003, the SEC revoked TGICIs
corporate registration for being fraudulently procured.
Prosecution: Private complainants Hector H. Alvarez, et. al. were enticed to
invest in TGICI due to the offer of high interest rates, as well as the
assurance that they will recover their investments. After giving their
money to TGICI, private complainants received a Certificate of Share and
post-dated checks, representing the amount of the principal investment
and the monthly interest earnings, respectively. Upon encashment, the
checks were dishonored, as the account was already closed, prompting
private complainants to bring the bounced checks to the TGICI office to
demand payment. At the office, the TGICI employees took the said
checks, gave private complainants acknowledgement receipts, and
reassured that their investments, as well as the interests, would be paid.
Facts:
Ong was charged with Violating the Anti-Fencing Law. Private complainant
owned 44 firestone truck tires and they have serial numbers. The tires
were also marked by the private complainant with chalk. The tires were
then stored in the warehouse of his relative Guano and Cabal was the
caretaker of the warehouse thus he was in charge of the tires. 36 tires were
stolen from the warehouse and they reported the robbery. Private
complainant scoured for the tires and he chanced upon Jongs marketing
which was owned by Ong. There he found the stolen tires. A buy bust
operation was conducted and Tito Atienza was appointed as the poseur
buyer.
Ongs Defense: he had been engaged in the business of buying and selling
tires for twenty-four (24) years and denying that he had any knowledge
that he was selling stolen tires in Jong Marketing. Go was the one who sold
the tires to him.
Issue: WON Ong violated the Anti-Fencing Law
Held: YES. The elements of Fencing were established. The accused knew
or should have known that the said article, item, object or anything of
value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
The words "should know" denote the fact that a person of reasonable
prudence and intelligence would ascertain the fact in performance of his
duty to another or would govern his conduct upon assumption that such
fact exists. Ong, who was in the business of buy and sell of tires for the
past twenty-four (24) years, ought to have known the ordinary course of
business in purchasing from an unknown seller. Admittedly, Go approached
Ong and offered to sell the thirteen (13) tires and he did not even ask for
proof of ownership of the tires.
Ong knew the requirement of the law in selling second hand tires. Section
6 of P.D. 1612 requires stores, establishments or entities dealing in the
buying and selling of any good, article, item, object or anything else of
value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof to secure the
necessary clearance or permit from the station commander of the
Integrated National Police in the town or city where that store,
establishment or entity is located before offering the item for sale to the
public. In fact, Ong has practiced the procedure of obtaining clearances
from the police station for some used tires he wanted to resell but, in this
particular transaction, he was remiss in his duty as a diligent businessman
who should have exercised prudence.
PEOPLE v. GARCIA
G.R. No. 138470 / APRIL 1, 2003 / YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. / CARNAPPING / JSGMANAO
NATURE
PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS
FACTS.
Appeal
People of the Philippines
Artemio Garcia y Cruz, Jr. and Regalado Bernabe y Orbe
other sense may be derived or expected from the act which is performed.
Thus, the mere use of the thing which was taken without the owners
consent constitutes gain.
Jaime Guinhawa v. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 162822 / August 25, 2005 / Justice Callejo, Sr.
Other Deceits
Facts
Issue
WON Guinhawa is guilty of other deceits?
Held
YES. For one to be liable for other deceits under the law, it is
required that the prosecution must prove the following essential elements:
(a) false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense other than those in the
preceding articles; (b) such false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense must
be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud; and (c) as a result, the offended party suffered damage or prejudice.
It is essential that such false statement or fraudulent representation
constitutes the very cause or the only motive for the private complainant
to part with her property.
FACTS.
At 5 oclock in the afternoon of March 13, 1986, caretaker Gardenio Agapay
took the cow to graze in the mountain of Pilipogan in Barangay
Candatag, about 40 meters from his hut. However, when he came back
for it at past 9 oclock in the morning of March 14, 1986, Agapay found
the cow gone. He found hoof prints which led to the house of Filomeno
Vallejos. He was told that petitioner Exuperancio Canta had taken the
animal.
Gardenio and Maria Tura went to recover the animal. They were informed
that petitioner had delivered the cow to his father, Florentino Canta,
barangay captain of Laca, Padre Burgos, Southern Leyte.
Maria recognized the cow upon seeing it.
Petitioner told Gardenio and Maria he would call them the next day so that
they could talk the matter over with his father. However, petitioner never
called them. Hence, Narciso Gabriel reported the matter to the police of
Malitbog, Southern Leyte.
Petitioner admitted taking the cow but claimed that it was his and that it
was lost on December 3, 1985. He presented two certificates of
ownership, one dated March 17, 1986 and another dated February 27,
1985, to support his claim. These were later proved to be falsified.
Narciso presented a certificate of ownership issued on March 9, 1986,
signed by the municipal treasurer, in which the cow was described as two
years old and female. On the reverse side, certificate is the drawing of a
cow. All four caretakers of the cow identified the cow as the same one
they had taken care of, based on the location of its cowlicks, its sex, and
its color.
RTC: Petitioner guilty of cattle rustling.
CA: Affirmed.
ISSUE & RATIO.
Whether or not Canta is guilty if Cattle Rustling. YES.
P.D. No. 533, 2(c) defines cattle-rustling as the taking away by
any means, methods or scheme, without the consent of the owner/raiser,
of any of the abovementioned animals whether or not for profit or gain, or
whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of any
person or force upon things. The crime is committed if the following
elements concur:
1. A large cattle is taken;
2. It belongs to another;
3. The taking is done without the consent of the owner;
4. The taking is done by any means, methods or scheme;
5. The taking is with or without intent to gain; and
6. The taking is accomplished with or without violence or intimidation
against person or force upon things.
First, there is no question that the cow belongs to Narciso Gabriel.
Petitioners only defense is that in taking the animal he acted in good faith
and in the honest belief that it was the cow which he had lost.
Second, petitioner, without the consent of the owner, took the cow
from the custody of the caretaker, Gardenio Agapay, despite the fact that
he knew all along that the latter was holding the animal for the owner,
Narciso.
Third, petitioner falsified his Certificate of Ownership of Large
Cattle by asking Telen to antedate it prior to the taking to make it appear
that he owned the cow in question.
Fourth, petitioner adopted means, methods, or schemes to
deprive Narciso of his possession of his cow, thus manifesting his intent to
gain.
MERIZ v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 134498 / NOVEMBER 13, 2001 / VITUG, J. / BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22 /
JSGMANAO
NATURE
PETITIONER
RESPONDENT
Appeal
Celia Meriz
People of the Philippines
FACTS.
Celia Meriz was engaged in the business of manufacturing garments for
export using the name and style of "Hi-Marc Needlecraft."
During the course of her business undertakings, Meriz obtained loans from
Amelia Santos and Summit Financing Corporation. She then issued 4
Pilipinas Bank checks in favor of Santos, all amounting to P188,400.00.
The checks, however, were later returned, with the notation "Insufficient
Funds" tamped on the dorsal portion of each check by the depositary
bank.
On December 15, 1988, Santos sent a telegram warning Meriz to settle the
account of the latter with the former in 3 days, and the institution of
criminal action in failure thereto. This warning, however, was ignored by
Meriz.
On January 12, 1990, another demand letter was sent to Meriz, giving her 7
days to settle said account and warning her of legal action upon failure
thereto; Meriz then sent a reply to Santos, requesting for more time.
Meriz, however, never settled the account.
RTC: Guilty of violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22.
CA: Affirmed RTC.
Defenses:
The checks were issued only as a condition for the grant of loan in her
favor; thus there was an absolute lack of consideration for the checks.
The requisite element of notice was also not complied with.
ISSUE & RATIO.
1. WON Meriz is guilty of violating BP 22. YES.
The essential elements of the offense penalized under BP 22 are:
(1) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or
for value;
(2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer or issuer that at the time of issue
he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for
the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and
(3) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not
the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment."
As for the first element, although Meriz contends that the heck were only
issued as conditions for the loan grant, the cause or reason for the
issuance of the check is immaterial in determining criminal liability under
BP 22. Once a check is presented for payment, the drawee bank gives it
the usual course whether issued in payment of an obligation or just as a
guaranty of an obligation. Hence, a check issued as an evidence of debt,
although not intended for encashment, has the same effect like any
other check and must thus be held to be within the contemplation of BP
22.
Knowledge under the second element involves a state of mind that
obviously would be difficult to establish Hence, Section 2 of BP 22
creates a prima facie presumption of knowledge on the insufficiency of
funds or credit when the check is presented within 90 days from the date
of the check, unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the
amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the
drawee of such check within 5 banking days after receiving notice that
such check has not been paid by the drawee. In this case, neither
exception was present since Meriz never paid nor made arrangements
thereto.
As for the third element, the argument of Meriz that the notice of
dishonor is inaccurate is of no merit, since there is nothing in the law that
prescribes the contents of a notice of dishonor except that the same be
in writing as opposed to a mere oral notice. The telegram and demand
letter sufficed as notice of dishonor, to which Meriz even acknowledged.
People v Edna Malngan
GR 170470 Chico-Nazario, J.
of arson, simple or destructive. The prosecution need only prove, that the
burning was intentional and that what was intentionally burned is an
inhabited house or dwelling.
Notes: Accordingly, in cases where both burning and death occur, in order
to determine what crime/crimes was/were perpetrated whether arson,
murder or arson and homicide/murder, it is de rigueur to ascertain the
main objective of the malefactor: (a) if the main objective is the burning of
the building or edifice, but death results by reason or on the occasion of
arson, the crime is simply arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed;
(b) if, on the other hand, the main objective is to kill a particular person
who may be in a building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as the means
to accomplish such goal the crime committed is murder only; lastly, (c) if
the objective is, likewise, to kill a particular person, and in fact the offender
has already done so, but fire is resorted to as a means to cover up the
killing, then there are two separate and distinct crimes committed
homicide/murder and arson.
Jaime Alferez v People
G.R. No. 182301 / January 31, 2011 / J. Nachura
Facts:
Jaime Alferez bought construction materials from Cebu ABC Sales
Commercial. He then issued 3 checks for payment but it was dishonored
for having been drawn against a closed account. He was charged with 3
counts of violation of BP 22. Alferez filed a demurrer of evidence and
claims that he did not receive the notice of dishonor. The MTCC denied his
petition and found him guilty.
Issue: WON he is guilty of BP 22
Held: No. In this case, the first and third elements of the crime have been
adequately established. The prosecution, however, failed to prove the
second element. Because this element involves a state of mind which is
difficult to establish, Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 creates a presumption of
knowledge of insufficiency of funds. 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. 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. 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. The burden of
proving notice rests upon the party asserting its existence. Ordinarily,
preponderance of evidence is sufficient to prove notice. B.P. Blg. 22 cases,
there should be clear proof of notice. Moreover, for notice by mail, it must
appear that the same was served on the addressee or a duly authorized
agent of the addressee.