Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Crim 2 Case Digest Sample
Crim 2 Case Digest Sample
FACTS:
Lintag purchased a condominium unit from New San Jose Builders, Inc. (NSJBI) for
the total contract price of Two Million Four Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P2,400,000.00). The payment scheme was on a monthly basis and Lintag hands
check payments to petitioner, a sales agent, who then remits it to NSJBI.
On November 27, 2008, Lintag issued check no. 0478521 which was drawn from her
checking account with BPI Family Savings Bank. The check, dated January 16, 2009,
was payable to the order of New San Jose Builders, Inc., for the amount of One
Million Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,300,000.00). Petitioner issued a NSJBI
acknowledgment receipt, with control no. 12802, dated November 27, 2008.
On December 9, 2008, Lintag once again met with petitioner to replace check no.
0478521 after the latter made representations that NSJBI wanted Lintag to issue two
different checks - one check for partial payment of the condominium unit, and the
other to cover expenses for transfer of unit under Lintag and her husband's names.
Consequently, Lintag issued two crossed-checks dated January 16, 2009. Check no.
0478252, was issued as partial payment for the unit and was payable to New San Jose
Builders, Inc., for the amount of P1,141,655.52. The other one, check no. 0478253,
was issued to cover expenses for transfer and was payable to CASH, for the amount of
P158,344.48. Petitioner received the checks and placed them inside his clutch bag,
and then handed another NSJBI acknowledgment receipt with control no. 12803.
On his way home, petitioner was allegedly accosted by two unidentified men who
were armed with deadly weapons. The men grabbed petitioner's clutch bag and
immediately absconded, taking the checks with them.
Petitioner, however, failed to inform Lintag and NSJBI that the checks were stolen.
Lintag testified that she and petitioner communicated on several occasions, through
text messages or personal interactions, to finalize the purchase of the unit. Lintag
stated that, on January 8, 2009, petitioner even reminded her to ensure that her
accounts had sufficient funds.
On February 6, 2009, Lintag learned that her current account with BPI had been
credited for the checks, but not as payment to NSJBI. She also discovered that check
no. 0478252 had been tampered with when the payee was changed from New San
Jose Builders, Inc. to CASH. It was also only after such discovery that petitioner
revealed the robbery incident to Lintag.
ISSUE:
Wether or not a complaint for estafa under Article 315 (l)(b), and estafa through
falsification of commercial documents, under Article 315 (2)(a),
with abuse of confidence against the petitioner will prosper?,
Ruling:
On March 20,2015, the RTC rendered a Decision, acquitting petitioner from estafa,
but holding him civilly liable, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, for failure of the prosecution to establish
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused Martin N. Lim Jr. is
hereby ACQUITTED on Criminal Case Nos. 09-3335 and 09-3336.
Nevertheless, Accused Martin N. Lim[, Jr.] is held civilly liable to the private
complainant and is hereby ordered to pay the latter the following:
In the end, the RTC only found petitioner civilly liable for failing to report the
robbery incident to Lintag or NSJBI, which could have averted the
unauthorized encashment of the checks.
PETITION TO CA:
On April 23, 2015, petitioner filed an appeal before the CA. Petitioner averred that his
civil liability had no sufficient basis as he was not the perpetrator of the crimes
charged.
CA HELD:
On May 18, 2017, the CA rendered the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
The Decision dated March 20, 2015 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION, AWARDING P1,300,000.00 as actual damages
(representing the total value of BPI Family Savings Bank Check Nos.
0478252 and 0478253), P200,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as
exemplary damages, and P500,000.00 as attorney's fees. The award of
P200,000.00 as nominal damages is DELETED.
On June 16, 2017, petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration, but the
same was denied in a Resolution dated September 6, 2017.
ISSUE:
RULING:
The court ruled… (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only
a preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the
liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the
accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which
the accused was acquitted.[12]