Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
The law covers the following acts of any person who knowingly or willfully
obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects
and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases:
GOOD FAITH is a defense in malum en se, such as estafa. This is too basic and
too elementary a doctrine that it does not require jurisprudential
citations. At any rate, the following cases are cited:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CORA ABELLA OJEDA, G.R. Nos.
104238-58, June 2004, on GOOD FAITH as a defense in estafa
and mala en se.
It must be noted that our Revised Penal Code was enacted to penalize
unlawful acts accompanied by evil intent denominated as crimes mala in
se. The principal consideration is the existence of malicious
intent. There is a concurrence of freedom, intelligence and intent which
together make up the criminal mind behind the criminal act. Thus, to
constitute a crime, the act must, generally and in most cases, be
accompanied by a criminal intent.Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit
rea. No crime is committed if the mind of the person performing the
act complained of is innocent. As we held
in Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan, 268 SCRA 332 [1997].:
Xxx.
The elements of Estafa under Article 315, Paragraph 1(B) of the Revised
Penal Code are:
The first element of Estafa under Article 315, Paragraph 1(B) is the
receipt by the offender of the money, goods, or other personal property 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.
X x x.
We next turn to the second element of Estafa under Article 315,
Paragraph 1(B) namely, prejudice and the third element, therein of
misappropriation.
Article 2202 of the Civil Code provides that in crimes and quasi delicts,
the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and
probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not
necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have
reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. Article 2199 of the same
Code, however, sets the limitation that, except as provided by law or by
stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for
such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. As such,
to warrant an award of actual or compensatory damages, the claimant
must prove that the damage sustained is the natural and probable
consequences of the negligent act and, moreover, the claimant must
adequately prove the amount of such damage.