Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2.) Jao Yu V People
2.) Jao Yu V People
) Jao Yu v People
Facts:
1.) Domagsang v CA Petitioner was charged with 19 counts of violation of BP 22
Facts: Was sentenced to pay fines and to indemnify a Susan Andaya
> Petitioner asked financial assistance from complainant Garcia and subsidiary imprisonment in case of non payment
who was the VP of metrobank
Was granted a loan for 573k. Issue:
Petitioner issued 18 cheques for payment of said loan May petitioner be imprisoned in case he is not able to pay the
Upon presentation, the cheques were dishonored for reason fines and damages due to violation of BP 22?
“account closed”.
Garcia called Domagsang thru phone to tell her that the Ruling:
cheques were dishonored Yes. Even though it is a special law, the provision of the RPC for
Despite demands, petitioner failed to pay subsidiary imprisonment applies as Art. 10 states that the RPC is
suppletory to special laws
Issue: No provision in BP Blg. 22 for subsidiary imprisonment, thus
Is the notice enough to create the presumption that RPC will be suppletory to it.
Domagsang had knowledge of the dishonor of cheques? Petition Denied.
Ruling:
Court Noted the elements of violation of BP Blg 22: 1.) The
making of the cheque for account or for value 2.) knowledge of
drawer that there was insufficient funds 3.) dishonor of the
cheque upon presentment.
Court noted that the BP blg 22 requires that the notice of
dishonor is an essential requirement for the presumption that
petitioner had knowledge that the cheques were dishonored
Petitioner was only given verbal notice by Garcia
Thus, there was no presumption of Domagsang having
knowledge that the cheques were dishonored.
Acquitted
3.) Lim v People 4.) Resterio v Peopl
Facts: Facts:
Petitioner issued 2 cheques for 100k each to Castor, Castor Resterio being charged with violation of BP Blg 22 for issuing a
used these cheques for his campaign to pay for campaign cheque for 50k which was subsequently dishonored for reason
materials but asked Lim to issue a stop-payment on it since the account closed and failed to pay the value within 5 banking days
materials were not delivered of its dishonor.
Complainant presented cheques and were dishonored for The cheque was issued for collateral to a loan
insufficient funds Petitioner argues that he cannot be convicted for the reason
Office of the Prosecutor issued a subpoena for Lim to pay the that the cheque was only a collateral and not meant to be
amount, petitioner issued replacement cheques, thus deposited
complainant was able to encash the cheques.
He was filed with violation of BP 22 2 years after cheques has Issue:
been encashed Is he guilty of violation of BP 22
Issue: Ruling:
Is Lim guilty of violation of BP 22? Three elements: 1.) Drawer issues a cheque for account or for
value. 2.) Drawer had knowledge of insufficiency. 3.) Cheque
Ruling: was dishonored
Generally to extinguish criminal liability, BP 22 states that the BP 22 punishes the mere act of issuing a worthless cheque
payment shall be made within 5 banking days from notice or BP 22 is malum prohibitum
dishonor Bank claims they sent 2 notices of dishonor thru mail
It is in the spirit of the law to protect the credibility and stability Court noted that there should be sufficient proof that the
of the banking system, it would defeat this purpose if people accused was sent and received the notice of dishonor
are convicted after they had fixed their mistakes The receipt of registered letters and return receipts were not
Even though the payment was after 5 days, they already paid it enough to prove that they sent and accused received it.
after the subpoena. Lack of written notice of dishonor is fatal, cannot prove second
Payment of the cheques before the filing of the information has element, no presumption of knowledge
already rectified the mistake of the accused, it already has They should have presented the people who mailed it.
attained the purpose of the law Court reverses and acquits accused
Payment after information has been filed will not extinguish
liability
Acquitted
5.) Lee v CA 6.) Vergara v People
Facts: Facts:
Petitioner obtained loan for Unlad Commercial Enterprise for Perpetual Garment Corps obtained a continuing credit line for
900k which was co-signed by Bautista 750k
As payment he issued 26 cheques, 4 of which was dishonored As payment of the loan, they issued PDCs with petitioner
due to insufficient funds. Were replaced and this time cheques signing in the cheques as VP of the company
were dishonored due to account closed A cheque for 150k was dishonored due to insufficient funds
Sent demand letter but refused to make payments Petitioner had made cash and cheque payments which was first
Petitioner claims he did not know anything about the cheque applied to the interests and penalties, outstanding balance is
and only signed thereon in exchange of interest per month still 610k
Petitioner asserts that they already paid 542k which is more
Issue: than the amount of the 150k cheque
Is Lee guilty of violation of BP 22
Issue:
Ruling: Is petitioner guilty of violation of BP 22
Presumption of knowledge proven by the fact that the
petitioner received the demand letters sent by complainants Ruling:
Petitioner admits having continued investing in Unlad, thus he It was not proven that a notice of dishonor was given and
has not severed ties with Bautista who is its owner received by petitioner
The cheque was issued for a consideration, in this case even It was not established when the notice of dishonor was given,
though he claims it was signed in blank, it was for the 2.5% thus it cannot be determined when the 5-day payment period
interest on his investment will start. No prima facie evidence of knowledge
Again, petitioner has not proven that he has severed his ties Even assuming there was notice, petitioner subsequently issued
with Bautista 6 cheques for 150k after 2 years which was received by LIVECOR
Whether the drawee bank knows or not if there is insufficient 1 of the cheques that was dishonored for 25k was only
funds at the time of the issuance is immaterial as deceit is not encashed 3 years after its issuance, way beyond the 90 days
an element of the crime, it is malunm prohibitum prescribed.
Decision affirmed; guilty The petitioner cannot be faulted for the dishonor of the 1
cheque
Reversed and set aside. Acquitted
7.) Young v CA 8.) Yulo v People
Facts: Facts:
Young went to Ines asking for financial aid. Gave three cheques Petitioner issued three cheques to a certain Myrna for
for 50k. One of which is for 20k encashment
When Ines, complainant tried to encash it, it was dishonored 1 cheque was for 40k, 1 for 16k, 1 for 40k. All postdated Nov 18
due to insufficient funds 1992
CTBC called petitioner informing her of dishonor When Myrna tried to encash cheque with bank, it was
Young agreed to pay and promised, but did not fulfill promise dishonored due to insufficient funds
Ines called lawyer who sent demand letters which Young Told Josefina, the friend who introduced, of the dishonored
refused to receive. cheques but he wont provide Yulo address
Petitioner claims that he told complainant to call her up before Petitioner claims it was only a show money for a jewelry
encashing the cheques as they may not have sufficient funds as purchase which had no intention of being deposited
it will depend on his receivables Petitioner claims the complainant knows that the cheque do
With regard the subject cheque, he claims he issued a stop not have funds
order but did not give a reason why
Issue:
Issue: Is Yulo guilty of violation of BP 22 given that the cheque was
Is he guilty of violation of BP 22 only show money and not meant to be deposited and that
Myrna knows it does not have sufficient funds?
Ruling:
Cheque was dishonored for two reasons: The stop payment Ruling:
order and insufficient funds No notice of dishonor was sent
What is the element is the knowledge of the drawer of the Yulo herself admitted that when she issued the cheque, she
cheque, demand letter have been sent and he already has knew she only had 1000 at the account
promised that he would pay the dishonored cheques It is not the non payment the law punishes but the mere
Further, he himself said that the cheques may not have issuance of a worthless cheque
sufficient funds to cover the amount Josefina refused to provide address when Myrna asked for it.
Admitted he issued stop payment order without any reason Petition denied; guilty.
The information he provided Ines that it may not have
insufficiency of funds is immaterial as deceit is not an element
of the crime
Elements present: Issuance for value, Knowledge of
insufficiency or stop payment with no reason, dishonor of
cheque
Affirmed; guilty
9.) Josef v People 10.) Mitra v People
Facts: Facts:
Josef being charged with 26 counts of violation of BP 22 Mitra was the president of a money lending corporation
Petitioner purchased materials for shoes business, in payment Private respondent was issued cheques for his investment and
he issued 26 PDCs which was dishonored due to account closed. interest signed by Mitra
Private respondent informed of dishonor and demanded When Tarcelo tried to encash, dishonored due to account
payment, petitioner replaced the cheques which were also closed. Made oral demands but unheeded. Filed complaint for
dioshonored the 7 cheques worth 925k
Petitioner argues it has already been paid in cash and that he Mitra claims they signed the cheque in blank, no date, no name,
acted in good faith and no amount
Issue: Issue:
Is he guilty of violation of BP 22 Is he guilty of violation of BP 22
Ruling: Ruling:
Even though he claims it has already been paid in cash, he did BP 22 was enacted to address the problem of continued
not prove that he did so within 5 days of notice issuance of cheques by irresponsible persons
The photocopies were also enough evidence as he himself BP 22 punishes the issuance of a worthless cheque, not the
admitted the originals were with him and that it was enough purpose or consideration of such issuance.
that account closed was stamped on it It was positively established that the demand letter or notice of
Good faith also cannot be used as a defense as BP 22 is malum dishonor was sent and received by petitioner during the time
prohibitum. The mere act of issuance is what is being punished they were at court trial.
by the law. Even though the petitioner refused to sign the receipt of such
Petition denied; guilty demand letter, it is already enough that he was sent and he
received it in fact.
There is presumption of knowledge since there was notice
Elements present: Issuance for account or for value; knowledge
of insufficiency or stop payment order with no reason; dishonor
Petitioner guilty
Other deceits Representation of the van to be brand new does not fall under
the qualifications of fraud under article 315
11.) Guinhawa v People There is no claim or false representation of the petitioner that
Facts: the van was brand new
Guinhawa was an owner of a buy and sell business of motor However, representation can be made not only by words but
vehicles also by conduct
One of his purchased vehicles was driven by one of his driver He did not refute the fact that he was dealing with brand new
who had a heart attack in transit which caused damage to the cars, complainant was right to assume that the dealer was
van selling brand new cars
Van was repaired and offered for sale Service manual also stated that it was brand new
Spouses Silo wanted to buy the van, presumed it was brand The damage and repair was deliberately concealed from
new upon first look and purchased it for 591k without further offended party
inspections Fraudulent nondisclosure is the non duty to disclose the truth
DAS was executed after downpayment when the opportunity to it was not present
After some days of usage, he heard a squeaking sound at the The petitioner was mandated to reveal that the car has been
bottom of the car, took to gas station for inspection and found repaired as he was operating as a dealer of brand new cars
that some parts below the car was welded Petitioner cannot be relieved of deceitful concealment of
When they complained Guinhawa told them it was factory material facts
defect, they requested for it to be replaced with two other Petition denied; guilty of article 318
vehicles and stopped monthly amort on payment until it has
been replaced
Brought to a car clinic and was found that the car had
undergone repairs.
Petitioner now being charged with violation of 318
Issue:
Is he guilty of violation of 318
Ruling:
318 Other deceits elements:
o False pretense, fraudulent act
o Such false pretense or fraud act must be simultaneous
with the commission of fraud. May be prior
o Offended party is injured
It is essential that the fraud is the cause or motive by the
offended party to part with their property
12.) Villaflor v CA 13.) Veloso v Sandiganbayan
Facts: Facts:
Obtained a loan from private complainant Locsin for 1,000 to be Petitioner being charged for defrauding the govt of 982k thru
secured by a mortgage on a car tampering of documents and unauthorized issuance of notice of
Assurance that car was fully paid and free from encumbrances, advise.
loan and mortgage was executed. Was given 1k Conspiracy between suppliers and contractors and govt
Due to failure of payment of Villaflor, Locsin went to the the employees which the petitioner is being charged with
office of where the car was but found out that it has already Petitioner is District Auditor who had irregular processing of
been repossessed due to non payment of installments by approval of all vouchers and cheques in question to be
petitioner forwarded to COA
Found that he knew that the vouchers and cheques were
Issue: illegally funded and improperly charged
Whether there was false representation or false pretenses to Resorted to splitting so to void review or approval of higher
obtain the loan and guilty of article 318 estafa authorities
Required by COA that documents were to be approved by
Ruling: higher authorities but employed splitting to avoid such
The representation, assurance that the car has never been The nature of their work should have given them the
encumbered and failure to disclose that the car was previously responsibility of more scrutiny in the documents they were
mortgaged constitute deception handling
It is normal for business to take mortgage to protect their Petitioner was tasked with ensuring all transactions were
interests regular
Knowing that the car was still owned by the seller company, he Petition Denied
still told complainant that it was his.
The purposes of which was to obtain the loan, he is guilty of
false misrepresentation.
Guilty of article 318
14.) Catiis v CA 15.) People v Hao
Facts: Facts:
Private respondents being charged with estafa under article 315 A certain Dy invested in the invested 10m to spouses Gracia
in relation to PD 1689, syndicated estafa by complainant Catiis Was returned and was advised to invest more
Catiis has been defrauded through false representations to Invested 100m
deliver 123k USD on the pretense that the private respondents Hao issued cheques for 114m but were all dishonored
through corporations registered in the SEC were engaged in the Despite demands, money were not returned
FOREX business knowing that such corporations were not Petitioners petition that PD 1689 was inapplicable in their case
registered and no evidence to show that business was made for the
Syndicate as per PD 1689 is 5 or more persons formed with an general public, further they claim they cannot be guilty of said
intention for illegal act or defraudation or gross crime as PD 1689 and simple estafa are two distinct crimes
misrepresentation ro defraud
Issue:
Issue: Are they guilty of syndicated estafa?
Is the repondents guilty of syndicated estafa, are they able to
post bail? Ruling:
There was deceit as they represented attractive returns when in
Ruling: fact. It was only to be used as capital for her husbands business
Information only had four persons charged; PD 1689 needs 5 which in the end did not return the money
PD 1689 is estafa or swindling thru 315 or 316 by 5 or more Court noted the elements of violation of PD 1689:
persons o There is estafa or other forms of swindling as per 315
PD 1689 even though not members of a syndicate, will have the and 316
same penalty if fraud is more than 100k php o Committed by 5 or more persons
Petition denied; no syndicate; allow bail. o Misappropriation of money contributed by stockholders
Since there is no mitigiating or aggrav circ, the penalty is or funds solicited from the general public
bailable reclusion temporal medium period Third element is missing
Funds by the corporation was not solicited from the general
public
Petition denied; affirmed with modification that the crime is
only simple estafa
16.) Galvex v CA Misappropriation of funds it solicited from the general public is
Facts: established as RMSI is a bank whose fund comes from the
RMSI claiming to do business under the name Smartnet and/or general public through deposits
SPI obtained loan from AUB. Petition Denied; Guilty of violation of PD 1689
To induce approval, presented articles of incorporation with
400m capitalization
Approved 250m loan to Smartnet, RMSI’s division
Apparatenly SPI was only a subsidiary company under RMSI
with paid up capital of 62500
With this belief, extended loan which was unpaid despite
demands
RMSI denied liability as SPI is a separate entity than theirs
Issue:
Are they guilty of PD 1689?
Ruling:
Estafa elements present:
o There must be false pretense or misrepresentation or
fraudulent means
o It was executed prior to or simultaneously with the
fraud
o Offended party relied on the fraudulent means to part
with property
o Offended party suffered damage
Gilbert Guy made it appear that SPI and RMSI are one and the
same and AUB relied on the fact of the articles of incorporation
and paid up capital of RMSI
Circumstances show deceit
3 elements of PD1689
o Article 315 or 316 is committed
o By 5 persons
o Money from the general public or stockholders
The five officers established the corporations to carry out illegal
and unlawful act of misrepresenting SPI as a mere division of
RMSI
17.) People v Acosta 18.) People v Oliva
Facts: Facts:
Appelant’s clothes and applicances were burned by friend Ferigel Oliva was seen burning the roof of the house of Avelino
Afterwhich he was seen carrying a stove and a knife proceeding Occupants shouted for help; neighbor Benjamin was getting
to the house of the complainant water from the river when Oliva shot him at close range
He tried to burn house the first time but fire was easily put out Died
The next morning, he was seen in front of the burning house of Charged with separate charges of murder and arson
the private complainants
He is being charged with arson Issue:
What crime is he guilty of?
Issue:
Is he guilty of arson? Ruling:
PD 1613 punishes if the house was burned and there are
Ruling: inhabitants in it immaterial to the fact that the accused had
Circumstancial evidence show he was guilty of the crime knowledge if there are persons inside or not
First appellant had motive; this is for revenge for the burning of Elements of arson:
his things o There is intentional burning
Intent was established in his previous attempt o What is intentionally burned is a house or a dwelling
He was present while the fire was burning It was proven that when Oliva burned the house, Avelino and
He made a statement after the incident “so what if I burned family were inside sleeping
your house?” Found guilty of separate charges of arson under PD 1613 and
What the law punishes is not the value of the property murder
destroyed but the danger to human lives
Acosta guilty; sentenced to reclusion perpetua
19.) People v Malngan In this case, her intent was to destroy the house only
Facts: Circumstances show she was guilty:
Edna Malngan being charged with Arson with multiple homicide o She boarded the pedicab nervously
or arson resulting to 6 deaths o Unsure of intended direction
Edna Malngan who was working as a maid, was seen leaving the o After some minutes of leaving, the house was gutted by
premises by boarding a pedicab to go to Balasan Street fire
30 minutes later, Barangay Chairman’s group found that her o She confessed the crime when interviewed
employer’s house was gutted with fire She further argues that the identity of the people burned were
Shouts were heard inside not established thus she should be acquitted
Accused was caught and interrogated and admitted that she set o It is not an element of the crime that the persons killed
the house on fire as year salary has not been paid for a year. be identified
She asked if she could go home to her province and her o It only needs to be proven the two. Elements
employer insulted her That there was intentional burning
She admitted to crumpled newspapers, setting it on fire using a And what was burned was a house or a dwelling
lighter, and throwing it at a table Two kinds of arson:
Fire resulted to the burning of the house and adjoining houses o Article 320: Strucures both public and private that is
and the death of 6 people used for gathering of people or the public. Destructive
Interviewed by ABS CBN and narrated the events arson
o PD 1613-repeal to Article 321- Simple Arson where what
Issue: is burned includes burning of houses or dwelling or
What crime is she guilty with? establishments even not for public use or fore groups of
people
Ruling: What was burned in this case is a house which spread to 7 other
Court noted that there is no complex crime of arson with houses
multiple homicide Guilty of Simple Arson in violation of PD 1613; reclusion
PD 1613 states that if by reason or on occasion of the arson, a perpetua to death
death occurs reclusion perpetua is the punishment
PD 1613 whether destructive or otherwise punishes so long as
death results therefrom
When burning was done to kill someone, it is murder only; but
if the main objective is burning and death results, the homicide
will be absorbed and specially complexed with arson; But also if
the person has been killed and he decided to burn the house
still, the crimes are separate
What is key is the objective of the burning, whether for killing
or for burning
20.) Caballes v DAR 21.) Beltran v People
Facts Facts:
Spouses Caballes bought a land which was part of a larger Petitioner was married to a Charmaine Felix
parcel of land Filed for nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological
Tenant of the other portion of land constructed a house therein incapacity
prior to Caballes buying the land Charmaine the wife filed criminal complaint for concubinage as
Caballes spouses wanted to construct a poultry farm on their he claims Beltran lived with another woman.
bought land when they bought it and asked Abajon to vacate Petitioner argues that the decision in the nullity of marriage is a
the premises as his house and his farm was occupying their land prejudicial question that should merit the suspension for the
Refused and failed to make an agreement charge of concubinage
Caballes reprimanded Abajon for harvesting the crops within
their property, and afterwards Abajon cut down the banana Issue:
plants planted thereon Should the nullity of marriage be answered first before a charge
Caballes is filing for charges of malicious mischief against for concubinage be filed?
Abajon
DAR respondent in this case certified that Abajon was a bona- Ruling:
fide tenant of the land which is devoted for bananas Declaration of nullity is not a prejudicial question to the charge
That Abajon has the right to. Construct and harvest there as it of concubinage
was a zone for bananas, industrial zone Article 40, the nullity of previous marriage may be invoked for
the purposes of remarriage
Issue: For other uses as such in a case of concubinage, the only legally
Is Abajon guilty of malicious mischief? acceptable basis is a judicial declaration that the marriage is
void
Ruling: For purposes other than remarriage, other evidence may be
Court noted the elements of malicious mischief: adduced
o Offender deliberately damaged the property of another Petitioner need not present a final judgement of nullity of
o Damage was not arson or crimes involving destructions marriage as he can use other evidence other than the judicial
o There was malicious intent from the offender declaration
The first element is not present as the damage was not the Previous case has noted that he who contracts second marriage
property of another before the first one is declared void assumes the risk for bigamy
HE was the authorized occupant or possessor of the land Must wait for judicial declaration before contracting another
He was allowed by the previous owners to plant on the land marriage
He was the one who planted and cultivated the crops, thus he is Parties should not judge for themselves the nullity of their
the owner and not the landowner marriage
First element absent, no malicious mischief Thus he w ho cohabits before declaration assumes the risk of
Ruling: Dismissed charge of concubinage; petition dismissed
22.) Tibong v People with a woman, whereas in acts of lasciviousness, this element if
DIGEST absent.
FACTS:
AAA, 18 year old and a student of Benguet State U, was at the Attempted felony: When the offender commences the commission
house of the petitioner where where was boarding. One of the directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution
rooms was occupied by petitioner and his wife. Days before the which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or
incident, petitioner’s wife left the house after a misunderstanding accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
with him. Sometime on April 2006 before midnight, AAA was
awakened when she felt that someone was undressing her. She During the defense’s cross examination of AAA, the existence of
then saw her cousin wearing only briefs and crouching over her on petitioner’s overt acts showed his intent to lie with AAA was put to
top of bed and pulling down her pajamas and panties. Since AAA light.
struggled and resisted, petitioner went towards the compact disc
player to watch bold movies. Finding opportunity to escape, she Petitioner’s acts, as narrated by AAA, far from being mere obscene
grabbed her cellphone and bag and ran out of the house. or lewd, indisputably show that he intended to have, and was bent
on consummating, carnal knowledge of AAA.
The following day, AAA, accompanied by her uncle, reported the
incident to the authorities.
Petitioner contention:
“Act of lying on top, embracing and kissing, mashing her breast,
inserting his hand inside her panty and touching her sexual organ
do not constitute attempted rape absent any showing that
petitioner actually commenced to force his penis into the
complainant’s sexual organ. Rather, these acts constitutes acts of
lasciviousness.1
HELD: YES!
While rape and acts of lasciviousness have the same nature, they
are fundamentally different. For in rape, there is the intent to lie
1
Perez vs. CA
23.) People v Dadulla 24.) People v Collado
Digest DIGEST
The trial court found accused-appellant guilty of statutory rape
and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Likewise, it found him guilty of three (3) counts of acts of
lasciviousness and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of six (6)
years of prision correctional in its maximum period for each count.
It also ordered him to indemnify the private complainant in the
amount of P50,000.00, and P100,000.00 for moral damages.
HELD:
The trial court was correct in finding accused-appellant guilty of
three (3) counts of acts of lasciviousness. The SC took however to
its finding that statutory rape was committed by him on 5 June
1993. A thorough evaluation of the records will show that accused-
appellant should only be convicted for acts of lasciviousness and
not for consummated rape.
The SC held that absent any showing of the slightest penetration
of the female organ, i.e. touching of either the labia of the
pudendum by the penis, there can be no consummated rape; at
most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.
The SC found accused guilty of 4 counts of acts of lasciviousness,
aggravated by obvious ungratefulness. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, accused-appellant was sentenced to an
indeterminate prison term of four (4) months and twenty (20) days
of arresto mayor maximum as minimum, to four (4) years six (6)
months and ten (10) days of prision correccional maximum as
maximum, in each count of Acts of Lasciviousness. Accused-
appellant was further directed to pay the private complainant
P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P40,000.00 for moral damages,
P20,000.00 for exemplary damages, in each of the four (4) counts
of Acts of Lasciviousness, and to pay the costs.
25.) People v Javier