CHAPTER 6- SWINDLING AND OTHER
of the thing to be delivered, the delivery of the
DECEITS
ART 315- SWINDLING (ESTAFA)
Elements of estafa in general:
1) That the accused defrauded another (a) by
abuse of confidence, or (b) by means of deceit;
and
2) That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to the offended party or
third person
3 DIFFERENT WAYS OF COMMITTING ESTAFA
UNDER ART 315
A) with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence
byacts
B) by means of false pretense or fraudulent means of
C) through fraudulent means deceit
Deceit is not an essential requisite of estafa with
abuse of confidence
in cases wherein the money or other personal property
has been voluntarily entrusted to the offender, without
wrongdoing on his part in obtaining or receiving it.
BASIS OF PENALTY- amount of the damage or
prejudice
A. ESTAFA WITH UNFAITHFULNESS OR
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
(a) By altering the substance, quantity, or
quality of anything of value which the
offender shall deliver by virtue of an
obligation to do so, even though such
obligation be based on an immoral or
illegal consideration
ELEMENTS:
1) That the offender has an onerous obligation to
deliver something of value.
2) That he alters its substance, quantity, or quality
3) That damage or prejudice is caused to another
There must be an EXISTING OBLIGATION to
deliver something of value
By virtue of an ONEROUS OBLIGATION- the thing
delivered must be fully or partially paid for when
received by the other party
1) Altering the substance- opium to molasses
*Altering the substance may constitute a violation
of the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act-
adulteration or mixing of some extraneous
substance in an article of food so as to lower its
quality.
2) Altering the quantity- 100 cavans to 98 cavans
3) Altering the quality- first class rice to poor kind of
rice
When there is NO AGREEMENT as to the QUALITY
THING NOT ACCEPTABLE to the complainant is
NOT ESTAFA- no agreement as to the quality of the
ROTC and PMT insignias and name plates
Even though such obligation be BASED on an
IMMORAL or ILLEGAL CONSIDERATION- not a
subject of lawful commerce
(b) By misappropriating, or converting, to the
prejudice of another, money, goods or any
other personal property 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, even
though such obligation be totally or
partially guaranteed by a bond; or by
denying having received such money,
goods, or other property
ELEMENTS:
1) That money, goods, or other personal property be
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
4) That there is a demand made by the offended party
to the offender- *Not necessary when there is evidence
of misappropriation of the goods by the defendant
Check is included in the word money
1) substitute for cash and the credit represented by it
is properly capable of appropriation
2) delivery= transfer of sum covered
3) creation of fiduciary relation
I. Money, goods or other personal property must
be RECEIVED by the OFFENDER- otherwise, if the
offender takes the thing without the consent it is
theft
Money, goods or other personal property must
be received by the offender under certain kinds
of transaction transferring JURIDICAL
POSSESSION to him- in trust, on commission or for
administration
Juridical possession- a possession which gives the
transferee a right over the thing which the transferee
may set up even against the owner.
People v. Noveno- it was agreed that upon receipt of
the amount of P10.00, Kuki would let Osang drive his
1- CRIMINAL LAW II
truck hired by JC until noon of the day.
Guzman v. CA- An agent, unlike a servant or
messenger, has both the physical and juridical
possession of the goods received in agency or the
proceeds thereof.
Presumption as to kind of possession-When the
delivery of a chattel has NOT the EFFECT of
TRANSFERRING the JURIDICAL POSSESSION thereof, or
title thereto, it is presumed that the possession of, and
title to, the thing so delivered REMAIN IN THE OWNER.
ILLUSTRATION of estafa where the offender
RECEIVED the thing in trust, on commission, or
for administration:
1) The thing was received in trust
People v. Carulasdulasan- Sale of abaca: for tenants,
for landlord. What the accused are charged with
having misappropriated is the landlords share of the
purchase price which they received in trust for him.
Failure to turnover to the bank the proceeds of
the sale of goods covered by TRUST RECEIPTS is
estafa- the ownership of the merchandise continues to
be vested in the person who has advanced payment,
until he has been paid in full, or if the merchandise has
already been sold, the proceeds of the sale should be
turned over to him by the importer
2) The thing was received on commission
US v. Figueroa- As o the P0.25 in cash received from B,
there is estafa. As to his promise to pay P0.25 to the
municipal treasurer in consideration of some part
received from C, there is no estafa. To deliver the
same
3) The thing was received for administration
People v. Benitez-estate of a deceased person- where
the accused collected a sum of money as rentals from
the different tenants of his employer, upon demand
therefore, he is guilty of estafa.
or under any other obligation involving the duty
to make delivery of, or to return the same,
includes QUASI-CONTRACTS and certain
CONTRACTS OF BAILMENT
QUASI- CONTRACTS- the person who received the
thing also acquires juridical possession of the thing
received.
US v. Yap Tian Jong- box of goods confused with box of
sinamay- denial of receipt
CONTRACTS OF BAILMENT- such as contract of
deposit, contract of lease of personal property,
commodatum, etc., the depositary or the lesse, or the
borrower acquires juridical possession of the thing
deposited with him, or leased to him or loaned to him.
a) Under a contract of Deposit
People v. Campos- Stock No. 517 guaranty for
shares of crown mines was instead paid by the
offender as the guaranty for his overdraft in HSBC
b) Under contract of lease of personal property
People v. Isaac- Operated as PUBLIC UTILITY- No
contract of lease- no juridical possession- no estafa
but THEFT
People v. Noveno NOT operated as PUBLIC
UTILITY- With contract of lease- with juridical
possession- no theft but ESTAFA
c) Under a contract of commodatum- loan for use-
bailor retains ownership of the thing loaned
*These contracts require the return of the same thing
received.
The obligation to return or deliver the thing
must be contractual WITHOUT TRANSFERRING to
the accused the OWNERSHIP of the thing
received- When ownership is transferred, CIVIL
LIABILITY only!
Sison v. People-TRIAL BASIS- retention by the buyer
of the property object of the sale without giving notice
of rejection to the owner after the expiration of the
agreed trial period, passes ownership of the property to
him. That as the accused chose to retain the radio set,
the transaction, theretofore indefinite, became
automatically sale.
Provisions of the Civil Code
ART 1477- The ownership of the thing sold shall be
transferred to the vendee upon the actual or
constructive delivery thereof.
ART 1482- Whenever earnest money is given in a
contract of sale, it shall be considered as part of the
price and as proof of the perfection of the contract.
When the transaction of purchase and sale fails,
there is no estafa, if the accused refused to
return the advance payment.
Abeto v. People-The accused used to supply copra not
only to complainant but also to other exporters, clearly
indicate that the transaction was that of sale of copra
for future delivery. An advance payment is subject to
the disposal of the vendor.
2- CRIMINAL LAW II
 There is NO ESTAFA when the money or other
personal property received by the accused is
NOT to be USED FOR a PARTICULAR PURPOSE or
to be RETURNED.
US v. Villareal- native hats- the accused was in debt to
C. Fressel & Co. for money advanced- there is no
evidence that he received it for safekeeping, or on
commission, or for administration; or under any other
circumstances giving rise to the obligation to make
delivery of or to return the same.
Amounts paid by the STUDENTS to the school to
ANSWER for the VALUE OF MATERIALS BROKEN
are not mere deposits
There is NO estafa if the thing is received under
a CONTRACT OF SALE ON CREDIT
Criminal Liability for estafa not affected by
NOVATION of contract
People v. Benitez- Upon the demand, the accused
offered to work in his employers establishment, to be
deducted from his salary every month until the whole
amount is fully paid. The accused did not report.
In order that novation of contract may RELIEVE the
accused of criminal liability, the novation must take
place BEFORE the CRIMINAL LIABILITY is incurred.
Criminal Liability for estafa already committed is not
affected by compromise or novation of contract, for it
is a public offense which must be prosecuted and
punished by the state at its own volition.
Novation of contract FROM one of AGENCY TO
one of sale, RELIEVES defendant from incipient
criminal liability under the first contract.
Before the filing of the complaint, the accused signed a
compromise whereby he acknowledge the obligation
and promised to pay.
Before any demand was made on him, the accused
persuaded complainant and the latter agreed to lend
him the price of the car and his share of the profit for
two months.
Acceptance of promissory note or extension of
time for payment does not constitute novation.
II. By misappropriating or by converting
CONVERTING- act of using or disposing of anothers
property as if it were ones own (inangkin)
MISAPPROPRIATE- not only conversion to ones
personal advantage but also every attempt to dispose
of the property of another without right (ginamit for
own benefit)
PLEDGING- a thing by the accused, which was
received by him only to be sold on commission,
constitutes the crime of estafa.
DEPOSIT OF MONEY received in trust by accused
in his personal account and his failure to account
for it on demand is estafa.
ESTAFA BY CONVERSION
People v. Flores- In giving the ring to a sub-agent, the
accused assumed the right to dispose of it as if it were
hers, thereby committing conversion and a clear
breach of trust.
US v. Torres- an agent sold the thing received on
commission for a lower price than the one fixed, does
not constitute estafa.
Selling the thing on credit is estafa
ESTAFA BY MISAPPROPRIATION
US v. Sevilla- treasurer of the Manila Railroad
Company- took the funds replacing it with his personal
check of the same amount. He directed the cashier to
hold the check and not to deposit it on the current
bank account of the Manila Railroad Company until the
end of the month. The law is clear and makes no
distinction between permanent and temporary
misappropriations. Fraudulent intent is not necessary
because the breach of confidence involved in the
misappropriation of trust funds takes the place of
fraudulent intent and is in itself sufficient.
Does momentary use by the agent of funds
belonging to his principal constitutes estafa? If
he has no intention to defraud his principal then there
is no estafa.
Fraudulent intent is an indispensable element in
estafa- Any person who shall defraud another; the
fraud be committed by any of the following means
*The DELAY in the fulfillment of a trust or in the
delivery of the sum received on such account only
involves CIVIL LIABILITY.
When is an agent who gave to a sub-agent the
thing received from his principal, guilty of
misappropriation or conversion?
The accused, who had received a ring to sell under the
condition that she was to return it the following day if
not sold, without any authority to give it to sub-agent
who later misappropriated it, is guilty of estafa.
III. DAMAGE to the offended party, not the gain of
the offender, is the important consideration.
3- CRIMINAL LAW II
Withholding application by agent of money
received
If it was done for the purpose of necessary self-
protection against his principal in civil controversies,
then there is no estafa.
Can an agent with a right to a commission who
collected money for the principal be held liable
for estafa, if he failed to turn over that part of
his collection to the latter?
1) If the agent is authorized to retain his commission
out of the amounts he collected, there is no estafa.
2) Otherwise, he is guilty of estafa, because the right
to a commission does not make the agent a joint
owner, with a right to the money collected.
People v. Jumawan- The accused, who was unjustly
exploited, is not criminally liable for his act of retaining
the amount which was even less than what was
actually due and owing to him by his principal. The
complainant not having been damages or prejudiced
by the act of the accused in retaining and setting off
what was due to him, the criminal action for estafa
should be dismissed.
ESTAFA BY DENYING HAVING RECEIVED THE
THING
US v. Yap Tian Jong- the accused who denied having
received a box of sinamay delivered to him by mistake
was convicted of estafa.
PREJUDICE OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
In estafa with abuse of confidence, it is not necessary
that the offender should obtain gain.
To the prejudice of another- not necessarily of
the owner of the property
A, upon knowing it, immediately went to the pawnshop
and recovered it without any expense on his part.- no
estafa
PARTNERSHIP- liability of partners for estafa
Partners are not liable for estafa of money or
property received for the partnership when the
business commenced and profits accrued.
US v. Clarin-T, C and G did in fact traded in mangoes
obtained P203 from the business , but, did not comply
with the terms of the contract by delivering to L his half
of the profits. Only civil liability
PARTNERSHIP- when two or more persons bind
themselves to contribute money, property or industry
to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the
profits among themselves, a contract is formed.
*The misappropriation by a partner of the share of
another partner in the profits would constitute estafa
through misappropriation,
A co-owner is not liable for estafa, but he is
liable if, AFTER the TERMINATION of the CO-
OWNERSHIP, he MISAPPROPRIATES the thing
which has become the EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY of
the other
Mercado v. People- Miguela bought the house of
Martina who then sold the house to Simsuangco. Prior
to said sale, Miguela had already paid appellant the
amount advanced by her, plus interest. Imbis na mas
malaki ang makuhang interes, unti lang ang nakuha
dahil maaga niyang binayaran.
But when the money or property had been
received by a partner for specific purpose and he
later misappropriated it, there is estafa.
People v. Dela Cruz- C failed to make the payment of
the devts, failed to purchase pigs and appropriated the
money for his own use.
IV. DEMAND
Demand is NOT required by law; but it is
necessary, because failure to account, upon
demand, is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE of
MISAPPROPRIATION
Tubb v. People- The facts clearly show that the sum of
P6,000 belonging to Quasha had been misappropriated
by petitioner for he dispappeared soon after receipt of
said sum and when Quasha found him the petitioner
merely said that there was no use telling what
happened but that he would try to pay it back.
PRESUMPTION of misappropriation arises only
when the EXPLANATION of the accused is
ABSOLUTELY DEVOID OF MERIT
People v. Lopez-The appellant claims that his failure to
return the amount delivered to him by the offended
party was due to the fact that he had advanced it to
several minors in gold in the ordinary course of
business, but these miners perished in accident before
they were able to comply with their agreement.
Even if the offender cannot be located, or there
was agreement upon specific time for delivery or
return of the thing received, DEMAND CANT BE
DISPENSED WITH.
The demand to fulfill the trust or return the thing
received must be made formally and before the action
is filed.
The ruling is different in these cases:
People v. Villegas- The disappearing act of the offender
is a clear indication of a premeditated intention to
abscond with the thing he received from the offended
party.
NO ESTAFA through NEGLIGENCE
ART 315 differs radically from ART 217- punishing
4- CRIMINAL LAW II
malversation of public funds which may take place if an person and instead of doing so, misappropriated ito the
accountable officer shall permit any other person to prejudice of the owner. (qualified theft)
take such public funds or property, wholly or partially.
The profit or gain must be obtained by the accused Possession of agent distinguished from
personally, through his own acts. possession of teller of bank
can assert as against his own mere custodian
People v. Trinidad- The accused who had received from or keeper of
the complainant the sum of P4k, to be employed in the principal, an independent and the funds received, and
purchase of a car, entrusted and delivered the money has
to his business companions for the same purpose, but autonomous right to retain the no independent right or
his said companions absconded with the money, he title
accused is not liable for estafa even if he was negligent money or goods received in to retain or
in permitting other persons to take the benefit from the possess the same
entrusted money. consequence of the agency as against the
bank
Even though such obligation be totally or
partially guaranteed by a bond Selling the thing received to be pledged for the
People v. Leachon- A mortgage executed by the agent owner is theft, when the intent to appropriate
or salesman or a surety bond filed by the agent to existed at the time it was received.
answer for damages, advances etc., does not relieve People v. Trinidad- The intent to appropriate the ring
him from criminal liability, for this undertaking refers existed at the time it was received from the owner, as
only to his civil liability. shown by the fact that, upon receiving the ring, she
immediately offered it for sale.
The GRAVITY of the crime of estafa is determined
on the basis of the amount NOT RETURNED Estafa with abuse of confidence distinguished
BEFORE the institution of the CRIMINAL ACTION from Malversation
Javier v. People- P 12,000 the accused paid P50 his the offenders are entrusted with funds or property
contention that P11,950 should be the basis has no continuing offenses
merit.
Private funds or property Public funds or
ESTAFA with ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE, property
distinguished from THEFT Private individual or public officer Public officer
who is
Takes the thing Receives the who is not accountable accountable
thing committed by misappropriating, committed by
material or physical possession juridical possession appropriating,
the owner converting or denying having taking or
expects an immediate misappropriating or
.return of received money, goods or property consenting, or,
the thing to him through
abandonment or
US v. Pascual- P310 had been entrusted, the owner did negligence,
not expect the immediate return of it to him, because permitting any other
what he expected upon its delivery to the accused, was person
that the latter would deliver it to the third person. to take the public funds
(estafa)
When in the prosecution for MALVERSATION the
US v. De Vera- Igorot, bar of gold The accused PUBLIC OFFICER accountable for public funds is
promised to take the bar of gold to a silversmith and ACQUITTED, the PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL allegedly in
have it examined and to change the bank notes into conspiracy with him may be held liable for
silver coins. (theft) ESTAFA through falsification of public documents
People v. Aquino- palay- When the offended party because estafa through falsification of public
returned, she was informed that the accused had left documents is necessarily included in a charge of
for another town. She absconded with the money. malversation of public funds through falsification of
(theft) public documents

Servant, domestic or employee received money from MISAPPROPRIATION OF FIREARMS

the master with an obligation to deliver it to a third ESTAFA if NOT involved in the commission of a

5- CRIMINAL LAW II
crime
People v. Bautista- the policeman asked for the pistol of
the offended party, on the pretext that it should be
delivered to the Detective Bureau for examination, and
that it would be returned in three days, and once in
possession of the pistol, he sold it, it was held that the
policeman was guilty of estafa.
MALVERSATION if involved in the commission of
a crime
People v. Magsino- a policeman was charged for the
disappearance of the explosives seized by him from a
person who had no permit to possess them
(c) By taking undue advantage of the
signature of the offended party in blank,
and by writing any document above such
signature in blank, to the prejudice of the
offended party or any third person
ELEMENTS:
1) That the paper with the signature of the offended
party be in blank
2) That the offended party should have delivered it to
the offender
3) That above that signature of the offended party a
document is written by the offender without
authority to do so
4) That the document so written creates a liability of,
or causes damage to, the offended party or any third
person,
The paper with the signature in blank must be
DELIVERED by the offended party to the
offender
A left B a blank paper with As signature with a
request to nake a receipt for future payment to be
made by a debtor; but instead, B wrote thereon a
vale for some merchandise in the name of A.
A was keeping blank papers with the signature of B.
C stole one of them and wrote a document above the
signature, creating liability against B. The crime is
falsification, C made it appear that B participated in
a transaction when in truth and in fact he did not so
participate. It is not estafa because C was not
entrusted with the signature in blank. There is no
abuse of confidence.
B. and C. ESTAFA BY MEANS OF DECEIT
It is committed by means of false pretense or
fraudulent act or through fraudulent means.
ELEMENTS:
a) That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act
or fraudulent means
b) That such false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to
or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud
c) That 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
d) That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered
damage
There is no deceit if the complainant was aware
of the fictitious nature of the pretense
People v. Concepcion- The manager of the bank, who
let the money out, knew that the tobacco was non-
existent
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely
pretending to possess power, influence,
qualification, property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions, or by
means of other similar deceits.
3 WAYS:
1) by using fictitious name
2) by falsely pretending to possess power, influence,
qualification, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions
3) by means of other similar deceits.
It is indispensable that the element of deceit be
made PRIOR TO, or, at least SIMULTAENOUSLY
WITH, the delivery of the thing it being essential
that such false statement or fraudulent representation
constitutes the very cause or the only motive which
induces the complainant to part with the thing.
ESTAFA BY USING FICTITIOUS NAME
uses other name than his real name
People v. Yusay- A person found a pawnshop ticket in
the name of another and, using the name of that other
person, redeemed the jewelry mentioned therein.
ESTAFA BY FALSELY PRETENDING TO POSSESS
POWER
US v. Delos Reyes- carabao, ignorant Igorot, piece of
paper- misrepresentation that it was an instrument
which would make a coin and silver money
People v. Scott- magician, discover hidden treasures-
jar- P150
ESTAFA BY FALSELY PRETENDING TO POSSESS
INFLUENCE
influence in Malacaang, the Bureau of Immigration
and the Department of Foreign Affairs- nangechos lang
ESTAFA BY FALSELY PRETENDING TO POSSESS
QUALIFICATION
he was qualified in law to represent the offended party
6- CRIMINAL LAW II
ESTAFA BY FALSELY PRETENDING TO POSSESS
PROPERTY
People v. Santos- ordered building materials- pretend
that he had sufficient funds to pay in cash
A creditor who deceived his debtor is liable for
estafa
People v. Rubaton- falsely represented to one
Illuminado Jaud that he had 200 cavans of palay for
sale. If it was wrong for the complainant to refuse to
pay his obligation to appellant, it was not right either
for appellant to employ unlawful means to enable him
to collect,.
ESTAFA BY FALSELY PRETENDING TO POSSESS
CREDIT
People v. KawLiong- Sun Photo Supply- they were
merchants with credut, business and means with which
to pay for 10 dozen rolls, Kodak film No. 116
ESTAFA BY FALSELY PRETENDING TO POSSESS
AGENCY
People v. Contreras- falsely pretended to the
depositary of certain goods that he was sent by the
depositor of the goods to get them
ESTAFA BY FALSELY PRETENDING TO POSSESS
BUSINESS
People v. Acua- pretending to be engaged in the
business of buying and selling hogs- could not secure
delivery because they were short of funds.
Salcedo v. CA- fire insurance application- despite his
knowledge from newspapers that the insurance
company has been suspended is guilty for not
returning the premium he received. His company was
no longer authorized to engage in the business of
insurance
ESTAFA BY MEANS OF OTHER SIMILAR DECEITS
People v. Papa- In presenting a deed of donation,
known to be vitiated by lack of consent, to register and
secure new transfer certificates of tile in her name.
The pretense must be false
People v. Wilson Yee- immigration broker- bring his
family into this country- influence in Malacaang, the
Bureau of Immigration and the Department of Foreign
Affairs- Not a scintilla of evidence was adduced to
prove that appellants pretense of influence was no
true. It was not shown that he in fact possessed no
influence.
The offended party must be deprived of his
property by any of the false pretenses
mentioned in PAR 2 (a)
The offender must be able to obtain something from
the offended party. The false pretense should be the
efficient cause of the defraudation.
Where commission salesman took back the
machines from prospective customers and
misappropriated them, the crime is THEFT, not
estafa because there is only physical possession and
not juridical possession
ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION
People v. Pineda- a person succeeds in withdrawing
money from a deposit account of another by stealing
the latters PASSBOOK for such deposit and forging the
depositors signature on the withdrawal receipt of the
Postal Savings Bank issued by the bank.
In a decision of SC Spain- similar facts but the crime of
theft was decided upon the case because the false
representation made by the offender was nothing but a
continuation and natural development and
consequence of the crime of theft already committed.
People v. Asistio- traffic police sticker- a sort of road or
bridge pass, and sells it
Estafa through false pretense MADE IN WRITING
is only a simple crime of estafa, NOT a complex
crime of estafa through falsification
People v. Samonte Vda. De Guia- made it appear that
she is an unremarried widow of Rufino de Guia to
collect the amount of said checks from pension and the
benfits of a life insurance when in fact she was married
to Gili.
ATTEMPTED ESTAFA THROUGH FORGERY
People v. Balmores- forging 1/8 Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes ticker- altering a figure= making it appear
a prize winning number- forgery was noticed and
accused failed to get the prize.
Fraud in estafa by means of deceit must be
PROVED with CLEAR and POSITIVE EVIDENCE
(b) By altering the quality, fineness, or weight of
anything pertaining to his art or business
jeweler- diamond and piece of gold to be made into
ring by changing the stone with one of lower
quality
Manipulation of scale is punished by the RAC
Violation of Weights and Measures Act
US v. Cheng Chua- selling a supposed ganta of rice
which did not fill the measure at the edges by nearly a
half of an inch
US v. Vicente- using one-deciliter measure that was
false.
(c) By pretending to have bribed any
Government employee, without prejudice to
the action for calumny which the offended
party may deem proper to bring against the
7- CRIMINAL LAW II
 offender. In this case the offender shall be
punished by the maximum period of the
penalty
ESTAFA BY PRETENDING TO HAVE GIVEN BRIBE
bribe the doctor in charge of the physical examination
of the offended party so as to declare him unfit for
compulsory service in the Army
But if he really gives the money to the doctor, the
crime is corruption of public officer.
Without prejudice to the action for calumny
which the offended party may bring against the
offender
Note that in addition to the crime of estafa, the
offender may still be liable for the crime of
defamation which the government employee
allegedly bribed may deem proper to bring against the
offender
ESTAFA BY MEANS OF FRAUDULENT ACTS
The acts must be fraudulent
It must be characterized by, or founded on, deceit,
trick or cheat.
(d) By postdating a check or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation when the offender
had no funds in the bank, or his funds
deposited therein were not sufficient to
cover the amount of the check. The failure of
the drawer of the check to deposit the
amount necessary to cover his check within
three (3) days from receipt of notice from the
bank and/or the payee or holder that said
check has been dishonored for lack or
insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie
evidence of deceit constituting false
pretense or fraudulent act.
ESTAFA BY POSTDATING A CHECK OR ISSUING A
CHECK IN PAYMENT OF AN OBLIGATION
ELEMENTS:
1) That the offender postdated a check, or issued a
check in payment of an obligation
2) That such postdating or issuing a check was done
when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his
funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the
amount of the check.
The check must be genuine, and not falsified.
Otherwise, it will be estafa thru falsification of
commercial document
The check must be postdated or issued in
payment of an obligation contracted at the time
of the issuance and delivery of the check.
The elimination of the word such constitutes that it is
not limited to postdated check.
In payment of an obligation- check should not be
postdated or issued in payment of pre-existing
obligation.
Thus, when a check was issued in payment of a debt
contracted prior to such issuance, there is no estafa.-
not the efficient cause of the defraudation.
When check is issued in substitution of a
promissory note, it is in payment of pre-existing
obligation, no estafa
When accused did not have to assure the payee
that checks would be sufficiently funded on
maturity, there is no estafa.
The accused and the payee had been priorly engaged
for four years in rediscounting transactions.
People v. Cardenas- It is gathered that during her
transactions since 1991 with Nenit, appellant usually
issued postdated checks after jewelry was turned over
to her and that in fact some of the postdated checks
previously issued were dishonored but were not made
subject of criminal complaints. The issuance of the
check was not the means to obtain the jewelry.
The accused must be able to obtain something
from the offended party by means of the check
he issues and delivers.
Ang Tek Lian v. CA- the accused issued a check to Lee
Hua Hong in exchange for P4,000, but the check was
dishonored by the bank for lack of funds.
Exception: When the check issued is NOT in
payment of an obligation
When postdated checks are issued and intended
by the parties only as promissory notes, there is
no estafa even if there are no sufficient funds in
the bank to cover the same.
When not intended for presentation and encashment
with the bank against which they were drawn
When the check is issued by a guarantor, there is
no estafa- not in payment of an obligation
When the offender had no funds in the bank, or
his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to
cover the amount of the check.
RA 4885 eliminated the phrase the offender
knowing that at the time he had no funds in the
bank.
He should verify first the amount of his deposit before
postdating or issuing a check.
Prima facie evidence of deceit.
The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the
amount necessary to cover his check within 3 DAYS
8- CRIMINAL LAW II
from RECEIPT of NOTICE from the bank and/or the
payee or holder
Good faith is a defense in a charge of estafa by
postdating or issuing a check.
People v. Villapando- a few days before the due date,
foreseeing his inability to raise the amount of the
check, the accused went to see the complainant and
asked him not to present the check to the bank for
collection, and at the same time offered to pay the
amount thereof in installments , to which the latter
agreed.
Stopping payment of check.
If checks were issued by defendant and he received
money for them and stopped payment and did not
return the money and if at the time the check was
issued, he had the intention of stopping payment.
(estafa)
The person who uses the check may also be
liable.
With the knowledge that the drawer had no sufficient
funds in the bank, and used the same in the purchase
of goods
The payee or person receiving the check must be
defrauded.
With damage or prejudice
APPLICATION OF PD 818- only to PAR 2 (d)
BP 22 may be violated in 2 ways:
a) By making or drawing and issuing any check
ELEMENTS:
1) That a person makes or draw and issues any check
2) That the check is made or drawn and issued to
apply on account or for value
3) That the person who makes or draws and issues the
check knows at the time of issue that he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for
the payment of such check in full upon its
presentment.
4) That the check is subsequently dishonored by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or
would have been dishonored for the same reason had
not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the
bank to stop payment.
b) Failing to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a
credit
1) That a person has sufficient funds in or credit with
the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a
check
2) That he fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain
a credit to cover the full amount of the check if
presented within a period of 90 days from the date
appearing thereon.
3) That the check is dishonored by the drawee bank.
Gravamen of BP 22 is the ISSUANCE OF A CHECK-
malum prohibitum- criminal intent is immaterial
That the check is made or drawn and issued to
apply on account or for value
BP 22 does not make a distinction as to whether
the bad check is issued in payment of an obligation or
to merely guarantee an obligation.
to apply on account- pre-existing obligation
for value- in payment of obligation contracted at
the time of the issuance of the check
There is no double jeopardy
BP 22-crime against public interest; deceit is not an
element; amount of the check is the basis of penalty;
requires the drawers knowledge of lack or insufficiency
of funds
ART 315- crime against property; deceit is an
element; damage is the basis of penalty; does not
require the drawers knowledge of lack or insufficiency
of funds
Knows at the time of issue that he does not
have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank
If he had sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank at the time he issued the check, but later he
withdrew all his funds from or lost credit with the
drawee bank, is he liable if the check is subsequently
dishonored? NO, because at the time he issued the
check, he knew that he had sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank BUT LIABLE for failing to keep
sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full
amount of the check.
What is the effect of ordering the bank to stop
payment of the check without any valid reason upon
the liability of the drawer or maker who issued the
check? If the drawer or maker had in fact no sufficient
funds or credit, and the check would have been
dishonored for that reason had not the drawer or
maker ordered the bank to stop payment, he is liable.
It is no defense then that the drawer of the check
ordered the bank to stop payment, if he had no
sufficient funds or credit and the check would have
been dishonored had he not made the order. The law
regards the order of stopping payment as a mere
pretext of the drawer to avoid criminal liability.
Without any valid reason, ordered the bank to
stop payment.
There was a mistake in naming the payee of the check;
the drawer ordered the bank to stop payment;- valid
reason- drawer is not liable.
9- CRIMINAL LAW II
Suppose that the drawer had kept sufficient funds in
the drawee bank for 100 DAYS to cover the check he
had issued. The next day he withdrew all the funds.
When the check was presented later, it was
dishonored. Is the drawer liable? NO! The check was
not presented within the period of 90 days from the
date appearing thereon.
The person who actually signed the check in behalf of
such drawer shall be liable under the Act- check is
drawn by a corporation, company or entity.
LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICEOF DISHONOR is fatal.
A mere ORAL NOTICE or DEMAND to PAY would appear
to be insufficient for conviction under the law.
No disputable presumption of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds when there is no receipt of
notice of dishonor.
The burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the
drawer had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds
Where there is insufficient proof that notice of
dishonor was received, the presumption of
knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot arise.
Registry return cards must be authenticated to serve
as proof of receipt of letters sent through registered
mail.
Notice of dishonor to corporation is not notice to
officer who issued the check.
Responsibility under BP 22 is personal to the accused;
hence, personal knowledge of the notice of dishonor is
necessary.
Consequently, constructive notice to the corporation is
not enough to satisfy due process.
Policy of the Supreme Court on the matter of the
imposition of penalties for violation of BP 22
Penalty of imprison ment of not less than 30 days but
not more than 1 year OR a fine of not less than but not
more than DOUBLE the amount of the check, which
shall in no case exceed P200,000, OR both such fine
and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
Rule of preference in imposing penalties in BP 22
where the circumstances clearly indicate good faith or
a clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the
imposition of fine alone should be considered as the
more appropriate penalty
SEC 2- EVIDENCE OF KNOWLEDGE OF
INSUFFICIEN FUNDS
Presumption of drawers knowledge of
insufficient funds
when the check is presented within 90 days from the
date of the check
Exceptions:
a) When the check is presented AFTER 90 days from
the date of the check
b) When the 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.
Prima facie evidence does not arise where notice
of nonpayment is not sent to the maker or
drawer of the check
SEC 3- DUTY OF DRAWEE; RULES OF EVIDENCE
The drawee, who refuses to pay the check to the
holder thereof, to cause to be written, printed or
stamped in plain language thereon, or attached
thereto, the reason for his dishonor or refusal to pay
the same. Where there are no sufficient funds in or
credit with it, the drawee bank shall explicitly state
that fact in the notice of dishonor or refusal.
If the drawee bank received an order to stop payment
from the drawer, the former shall state in the notice
that there were no sufficient funds in or credit with it
for the payment in full of the check, if such be the fact.
In all prosecutions under BP 22, the introduction in
evidence of any unpaid and dishonored check with the
drawees refusal to pay stamped or written thereon, or
attached thereto, shall be prima facie evidence of:
1) The making or issuance of the check
2) The due presentment to the drawee for payment
and the dishonor thereof
3) The fact that the same was properly dishonored for
the reason written, stamped or attached by the drawee
on such dishonored check.
SEC 4-CREDIT- arrangement or understanding with
the bank for the payment of such check.
SEC 5-LIABILITY UNDER THE REVISED PENAL
CODE- shall be without prejudice to any liability for
violation of any provision of the RPC.
ESTAFA BY ISSUING A BAD CHECK IS A
CONTINUING CRIME
Jurisdiction can, therefore, be entertained by either the
Malolos court or the Caloocan court. (People v. Yabut)
e) By obtaining any food, refreshment or
accommodation at a hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house, or apartment
house and the like without paying therefor,
with intent to defraud the proprietor or
manager thereof, or by obtaining credit at a
hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house,
lodging house, or apartment house by the
use of any false pretense, or by abandoning
10- CRIMINAL LAW II
 surreptitiously removing any part of his
baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house, or apartment
house after obtaining any food, refreshment
or accommodation.
ESTAFA BY OBTAINING FOOD OR
ACCOMMODATION AT A HOTEL, ETC. 3 WAYS:
1) By obtaining any food, refreshment or
accommodation at a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding
house, lodging house, or apartment house and the like
without paying therefor, with intent to defraud the
proprietor or manager thereof.
2) By obtaining credit at any of said establishments by
the use of any false pretense
3) By abandoning surreptitiously removing any part of
his baggage from any of said establishments after
obtaining any food, refreshment or accommodation.
THROUGH ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FRAUDULENT
MEANS:
a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to
sign any document.
ESTAFA BY INDUCING ANOTHER TO SIGN ANY
DOCUMENT:
ELEMENTS:
1) That the offender induced the offended party to sign
a document.
2) That deceit be employed to make him sign the
document.
3) That the offended party personally signed the
document.
4) That prejudice be caused.
There must be INDUCEMENT
If the offended party is willing and ready from the
beginning to sign the document and there is deceit as
to the character or contents of the document, because
the contents are different from those which the
offended party told the accused to state in the
document. (falsification)
Deceit must be employed.
When no misrepresentation was made- civil action
Example of estafa by inducing another to sign
document.
US. v. Berry- anxious to obtain liberty- mortgage deed
of his land for the purposes of securing the payment of
attorneys fees, whereas the instrument was really an
absolute conveyance of the property.
b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to
insure success in a gambling game.
ESTAFA BY RESORTING TO SOME FRAUDULENT
PRACTICE TO INSURE SUCCESS IN A GAMBLING
GAME
People v. Romero- blackjack- cheat a rich friend- pre-
arranged signal. The rule in Civil Law that no action can
be filed on an immoral or illegal contract has no
application in the prosecution for estafa, even if the
offended party consented to the fraudulent scheme.
US v.Ner-cockfight- removed the gaff- the gamecock
was fixed- it could not inflict mortal wounds on and kill
its oppnonent.
c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in
whole or in part, any court record, office
files, documents or any other papers.
ESTAFA BY REMOVING, CONCEALING OR
DESTROYING DOCUMENTS
ELEMENTS:
1) That there be court record, office files, documents
or any other papers.
2) That the offender removed, concealed or destroyed
any of them
3) That the offender had intent to defraud another.
If there is no intent to defraud, the act of
destroying court record will be malicious
mischief
Examples of this kind of estafa:
Concealing document or any other paper:
US v. Tan Jenjua- concealed a document evidencing a
deposit of P2,600, which came into his possession
Destroying documents
US v. Kilayko- destruction of promissory note given
back to the maker to be replaced with a new one to
renew the loan, without making a new promissory
note- the offended party was dispossessed of the
evidence of debt.
People v. Dizon- bookkeeper destroyed the chits
evidencing his purchases on credit of merchandise
from his employer, so he could avoid payment
Is the act of destroying a promissory note, given
to cover losses in gambling, by he maker thereof
estafa?
YES!
Estafa Distinguished from Infidelity in the
custody of documents (ART 226)
the manner of committing the offenses is the same
private individual + public public officer
who is entrusted
officer who is not entrusted with the
document
with the documents
intent to defraud is required intent to defraud
not required
11- CRIMINAL LAW II
Elements of deceit and abuse of confidence may
CO-EXIST
US v. Lim- A intervened as a mediator between B and C
in a transaction of sale. A told B, the owner of the
property, that C would buy it for P500, when in truth, C
was buying it for P600. When C paid through A, the
latter gave B only the P500, pocketing the P100.
People v. Franco- false pretext of changing them with
Philippine pesos
If there is no deceit, no abuse of confidence,
there is no estafa, even if there is damage; there
is only civil liability.
DAMAGE OR PREJUDICE CAPABLE OF PECUNIARY
ESTIMATION
The ELEMENT of damage or prejudice may
CONSIST in:
1) The offended party being deprived of his
money or property, as result of the defraudation;
2) Disturbance in property rights
US v. Goyenechea- typewriter had been rented from
the offended party was sold to another person by the
accused- liable- even if the typewriter was recovered
by the owner
Payment made subsequent to the commission of
estafa does not extinguish criminal liability or
reduce the penalty.
The crime of estafa is not obliterated by
acceptance of promissory note
3) Temporary prejudice
People v. Santiago- pretended to be an agent of a
company- filter- The check was payable to cash and,
therefore, negotiable. While the accused had said
check in his possession, the offended party could not
dispose of the amount.
A private person who procures a loan by means
of deceit through a falsified public document of
mortgage, but who effects full settlement of the
loan within the period agreed upon, does not
commit the crime of estafa, there being no
disturbance of proprietary rights and no person
defrauded thereby. The crime committed is only
falsification of public document.
The accused cannot be convicted of estafa with
abuse of confidence under an information
alleging estafa by means of deceit.
COMPLEX CRIME of THEFT and ESTAFA
People v. Yusay- C, with intent to gain, took the
pawnshop tickets without the consent of either A or B.
This is theft. By redeeming the jewels by means of the
pawnshop tickets, he committed estafa using a
fictitious name.
ART 316- OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING
1) By conveying, selling, encumbering, or
mortgaging any real property, pretending to
be the owner of the same.
ELEMENTS:
1) That the thing be immovable, such as a parcel of
land or a building
2) That the offender who is not the owner of said
property should represent that he is the owner thereof.
3) That the offender should have executed an act of
ownership (selling, leasing, encumbering or
mortgaging the real property)
4) That the act be made to the prejudice of the owner
or a third person
A sold a parcel of land to B. Later, A sold the same
parcel of land to C, representing to the latter that he
was the owner thereof. At the time he sold the land to
C, A was no long the owner of the property.
The thing disposed of must be real property
If the property is a chattel, estafa by falsely pretending
to possess property or by means of other similar
deceits.
Building as real property- not ones merely
superimposed in the soil
are real property by incorporation, whether they be
erected by the owner of the land or by a usufructuary
or lessee.
There must be existing real property
If non-existent land- estafa by means of false
pretenses- ART 315 PAR 2 (a)
Deceit is consisting in false pretense as to
ownership of the real property must be
employed by the offender
Penalized only a person who pretends to be the owner
and not one who claims to be the owner.
Even if the deceit is practiced against the second
purchaser and the damage is incurred by the
first purchaser, there is violation of PAR 1 of ART
316
US v. Drilon- A sold a piece of land with pacto de retro
to B. A failed to repurchase the land and B became the
owner thereof. While still in possession and claiming to
be still the owner of said property, A sold it to C who
bought it in ignorance of the fact that the property had
already been alienated. C registered the sale in his
favor. B lost the property because by not registering
the sale in his favor, he was divested of his title.
12- CRIMINAL LAW II
Is intent to cause damage sufficient?
NO! the value of the damage caused is required.
ART 316 PAR 1 compared to ART 315 PAR 2 (a)
real property real and personal property
The offender exercises or executes, as part of the false
representation, some act of dominion or ownership
over the property to the damage and prejudice of the
real owner of the thing (ART 316 PAR 1)
Mere pointing of the property to the offended party and
his claim that he was the owner thereof (ART 315 PAR 2
(a))
2) By disposing of real property as free from
encumbrance, although such encumbrance
be not recorded
ELEMENTS:
1) That the thing disposed of be real property
2) That the offender knew that the real property was
encumbered, whether the encumbrance is recorded or
not
3) That there must be express representation by the
offender that the real property is free from
encumbrance
4) That the act of disposing of the real property be
made to the damage of another
A mortgaged his property to B. Later, A,
misrepresenting that said property is free from
encumbrance, mortgaged it again, this time to C.
Shall dispose of the same
The act constituting the offense is disposing of the real
property falsely representing that it is free from
encumbrance.
The term shall dispose includes encumbering or
mortgaging.
ENCUMBRANCE- includes every right or interest in
the land which exists in favor of third persons.
Outstanding mortgage, Ordinary lease, Attachment,
Lien of a judgment, Execution of sale subject to
redemption
The offended party must have been deceived,
that is, he would not have granted the loan had
he known that the property was already
encumbered.
When the loan had already been granted when
defendant offered the property as security for
the payment of the loan, ART 316, PAR 2 is not
applicable.
Although such encumbrance be not recorded.
Antazo v. People- the SC held that a person who
executes a Deed of Sale over a parcel of land free
from all liens and encumbrances after full payment of
he purchase price when in fact the land has been
mortgaged and is the subject of a levy on execution,
commits estafa.
Whether the first disposition is recorded or not.
Usurious loan including its accessory obligation
of equitable mortgage, being null and void, no
legal encumbrance on the property was created
thereby.
The thing disposed of must be real property
If personal property- ART 319
The offender must know that the real property is
encumbered
Real property may be registered under any
system of registration
Spanish system of transfer of property or Land
Registration Act
The third element requires misrepresentation,
fraud or deceit.
The law does not prohibit the sale of encumbered real
property. What is penalized is the fraud or deceit
committed by the vendor in representing that the
property is not encumbered.
When the third element is not established, there
is no crime.
It is not required that the victim should make an inquiry
or investigation in the office of the Register of Deeds to
find out the actual status or condition of the property.
There must be damage caused.
The basis of fine, in addition to imprisonment, is the
value of the damage caused. But it is not necessary
that the act be made to the prejudice of the owner of
the land.
Shall dispose of the same as free from
encumbrance
3) By wrongfully taking by the owner his
personal property from its lawful possessor.
ELEMENTS:
1) That the offender is the owner of personal property
2) That said personal property is in the lawful
possession of another
3) That the offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful
possessor
4) That prejudice is thereby caused to the possessor or
third person
The accused pawned his watch to the complainant.
Later, pretending to have the money for redeeming the
watch, the accused asked the offended party to give
him the watch. Once in possession of it, he carried it
13- CRIMINAL LAW II
away without paying the loan for which it was given to
the offended party as security.
The offender must be the owner of personal
property
If a third person- theft
If owner took the personal property without the lawful
possessors knowledge and later charged him with the
value of the property?
In no case may the owner be held guilty of theft of his
own property- one of the elements of theft is that it
belongs to another. But if the owner, after taking it
without the consent of the possessor, charged the
possessor with the value of said property- theft. (with
intent to gain)
The personal property must be in the lawful
possession of another
The finder of lost property has no right to possess the
same, it being his obligation to give it to its owner or to
the authorities.
The offender must wrongfully take the personal
property from its lawful possessor.
without the consent or when deceit is employed
Does the phrase shall wrongfully take it
include taking by violence?
NO! and with intent to gain- robbery; without intent to
gain- grave coercion
To the prejudice of the latter or any third
person
A pledged his watch- took the watch- dance party- A
returned and was about to put back the watch in the
drawer of Bs table, the latter surprised him. No
damage caused.
4) By executing any fictitious contract to the
prejudice of another
Simulates conveyance of his property to another,
for the purpose of defrauding his creditors.
Tan Dion and his wife had previously owned various
parcels of real property in the municipality but
investigation showed that prior to the events
mentioned they had transferred all to their co-
defendant Eustaquio Baranda.
5) By accepting any compensation for services
not rendered or for labor not performed
SOLUTIO INDEBITI-return the wrong payment
If the money in payment of a debt was delivered to a
wrong person, in case the person who received it later
refused or failed to return it to the owner of the money-
conversion (estafa ART 315)
6) By selling, mortgaging or encumbering real
property or properties with which the
offender guaranteed the fulfillment of his
obligation as surety
ELEMENTS:
1) That the offender is a surety in a bond given in a
criminal or civil action.
2) That he guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation
with his real property or properties
3) That he sells, mortgages, or, in any other manner
encumbers said real property
4) That such sale, mortgage or encumbrance is (a)
without express authority from the court, or (b) made
before the cancellation of his bond (c) before being
relieved from the obligation contracted by him
There must be damage caused under ART 316
Disturbance or property rights are not applicable,
because the property involved in those cases belonged
to the offended party, while in this case the property
sold by the accused was his own.
ART 318- OTHER DECEITS
1)By defrauding or damaging another by any other
deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles
2) By interpreting dreams, by making forecasts, by
telling fortunes, or by taking advantage of the credulity
of public in any other similar manner, for profit or gain.
Scope of this article
US v. Reyes- A railroad conductor, who collected P1.22
from a passenger and issued a ticket for a shorter
journey for which the proper charge was P0.18 and
pocketed the difference.
Estafa by hiring and using public vehicle without
money to pay the fare
The deceits in this article include false pretenses
and fraudulent acts
US v. Basco- To give genuine copper cents the
appearance of silver pesetas by whitening them with
quicksilver
People v. Panlileo- A person who presents himself to
another as domestic helper and obtains money in
advance and later leaves the service
Application of ART 318
People v. Ganasi-Much to his surprise, he was informed
that what the accused had sold was not Lot No.1 but
Lot No. 2 composed mostly of uneven and hilly terrain
and which was worthless for a carpentry shop.
14- CRIMINAL LAW II

CHAPTER 7- CHATTEL MORTGAGE
ART 319- REMOVAL, SALE OR PLEDGE OF
MORTGAGED PROPERTY
The mortgage debtors may be deterred from the
violation of its provisions and the mortgage creditors
may be protected against loss or convenience resulting
from the wrongful removal or sale of the mortgages
property.
The chattel mortgage must be valid and
subsisting.
Acts punishable under ART 319:
1) By knowingly removing any personal
property mortgaged under the Chattel
Mortgage Law to any province or city other
than the one in which it is located at the time
of execution of the mortgage, without the
written consent of the mortgagee or his
executors, administrators or assigns.
ELEMENTS:
a) That the personal property is mortgaged under the
Chattel Mortgage Law.
b) That the offender knows that such property is so
mortgaged.
c) That he removes such mortgaged personal property
to any province or city other than the one in which it
was located at the time of the execution of the
mortgage
d) That the removal is permanent
e) That there is no written consent of the mortgagee or
his executors, administrators or assigns to such
removal
Liability of person other than the mortgagor
The third person who removed the property to another
province, knowing it to have been mortgaged is liable
under this article. The offender is any person
If the chattel mortgage is not registered, there is
no violation of ART 319, no felonious intent when
transfer of personal property is due to change of
residence
Example of violation of PAR 1 ART 319
US v. Rimon- The accused mortgaged his piano then in
Manila to the offended party to secure the payment of
his debt to the latter in the amount of P350. Thereafter,
the accused took the piano to Kalibo, Capiz, without
the offended party knowing the removal of the piano.
The removal of the mortgaged personal property
must be coupled with intent to defraud
Filing a civil action for collection, not for
foreclosure of chattel mortgage, relieves the
accused of criminal responsibility
2) By selling or pledging personal property
already pledged, or any part thereof, under
the terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law,
without the consent of the mortgagee
written on the back of the mortgage and
noted on the record thereof in the office of
the register of deeds of the province where
such property is located
ELEMENTS:
a) That personal property is already pledged under the
terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law
b) That the offender, who is the mortgagor of such
property, sells or pledges the same or any part thereof.
c) That there is no consent of the mortgagee written on
the back of the mortgage and noted on the record
thereof in the office of the register of deeds.
House may be subject of chattel mortgage by
agreement of the parties
Second chattel mortgage is included- hipoteca
The consent of the mortgage must be
1) in writing
2) on the back of the mortgage
3) noted on the record thereof in the office of the
register of deeds
If I is written only on a separate piece of paper-
violation
Damage is not necessary
Chattel mortgage may give rise to estafa by
means of deceit
People v. Calsim- accused obtained a loan-P2500
payable for 5 years- executed in favor of Mauro Magno
a deed of chattel mortgage- first mortgage a two-
storey house- previously mortgaged by the owner-
refused registration by the register of deeds
The appellant obtained the loan from complainant
through false representation or deceit. The
complainant had granted the loan in the belief that the
security offered was free from lien or encumbrance. He
also suffered damage from being deprived of the use of
his money.
Chattel mortgage vs. Estafa by disposing of
encumbered property
personal property real property
It is sufficient that the real property mortgaged be sold
as free, even though the vendor may have obtained
15- CRIMINAL LAW II
the consent of the mortgagee in writing. Purpose is to
protect the purchaser, whether the first or the second.
(estafa)
Mere failure to obtain the consent of the mortgagee in
writing, even if the offender should inform the
purchaser that the thing sold is mortgaged. Purpose is
to protect the mortgagee. (chattel mortgage)
CHAPTER 8- ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES
INVOLVING DESTRUCTION
ART 320-DESTRUCTIVE ARSON-malicious
burning of structures, both public and private, hotels,
buildings, edifices, trains, vessels, aircraft, factories
and other military, government or commercial
establishments by any person or group of persons.
This is to effectively discourage and deter the
commission of this dastardly crime, to prevent the
destruction of properties and to protect the lives of
innocent people.
It is normally difficult to adopt precautions against its
commission, and the difficulty in pinpointing the
perpetrators and the greater impact on the social,
economic, security and political fabric of the nation.
Penalty for Destructive Arson resulting to death-
reclusion perpetua with no eligibility for parole
Destructive Arson vs. Simple Arson under PD
1613
Both differ by the degree of perversity or
viciousness of the criminal offender
Destructive Arson are characterized as heinous crimes
for being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and
which, by reason of their inherent or manifest
wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are
repugnant and outrageous to the common standards
and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized
and ordered society.
Simple Arson are crimes with a lesser degree of
perversity and viciousness that the law punishes with a
lesser penalty is is with less significant social,
economic, political and national security implications
ELEMENTS OF CRIMES INVOLVING DESTRUCTION:
1) The offender causes destruction
2) Destruction is caused by any of the following means:
a) explosion
b) discharge of electric current
c) Inundation, sinking, or stranding of a vessel, or
intentional damaging of the engine of said vessel
d) Taking up the rails from a railway track
e) maliciously changing railway signals for the safety of
moving trains
f) destroying telegraph wires and telegraph posts, or
those of any other system
g) using any other agency or means of destruction as
effective as those above enumerated
ARSON-malicious destruction of property by fire
Kinds of Arson
1) Simple Arson (SEC 1, PD 1613)
2) Destructive Arson (ART 320)
3) Other cases of arson (SEC 3, PD 1613)
PD 1613 is the governing law for Simple Arson
It repealed ART 321-326-B
Recognizes the need o lessen the severity of
punishment
Burning of Houses, considered Simple Arson
under PD 1613
In case of ambiguity, shall be construed strictly against
the government, and liberally in favor of the accused.
Attempted, frustrated and consummated arson
1) ATTEMPTED- A person, intending to burn a wooden
structure, collects some rags, soaks them in gasoline
and places them beside the wooden wall of the
building. When he is about to light a match to set fire
the rags, he is discovered by another who chases him
away.
2) FRUSTRATED- the fire was put out before any part of
the building was burned
3) CONSUMMATED- it had burned a part of the building
If a part of the building commences to burn however
small is the portion of the building burned.
Any charring of the wood of a building, whereby the
fiber of the wood is destroyed, is sufficient. It is not
necessary that the wood should be ablaze.
And the mere fact that a building is scorched or
discolored by heat is NOT sufficient to constitute
consummated arson
Setting fire to the contents of a building constitutes the
consummated crime of setting fire to a building, even if
no part of the building was burned.
In attempted arson, it is not necessary that
there be a fire
When there is fire, the crime committed is either
frustrated or consummated but never attempted.
SEC 3 PAR 2 PD 1613
If the property burned is an inhabited house or
dwelling, it is not required that the house be occupied
by one or more persons and the offender knew it when
the house was burned.
There is no complex crime of arson with
homicide- it is absorbed
16- CRIMINAL LAW II
Prima facie evidence of arson- SEC 6 PD 1613
CHAPTER 9- MALICIOUS MISCHIEF-willful
damaging of anothers property for the sake of causing
damage due to hate, revenge or other evil motive.
What are the crimes classified as malicious
mischief?
1) Special cases of malicious mischief (ART 328)
2) Other mischiefs (ART 329)
3) Damage and obstruction to means of
communication (ART 330)
4) Destroying or damaging statues, public monuments
or paintings (ART 331)
ART 327- WHO ARE LIABLE FOR
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
ELEMENTS OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF:
1) That the offender deliberately caused damage to the
property of another
2) That such act does not constitute arson or other
crimes involving destruction
3) That the act of damaging anothers property be
committed merely for the sake of damaging it.-
presupposes that the offender acted due to hate,
revenge or other evil motive.
Shall deliberately cause to the property of
another any damage
specific desire to inflict injury to another
It cannot be committed through negligence
Killing of the cow of another as an act of revenge
is malicious mischief
We butchered it because the cow entered our
property. There being no sufficient evidence that the
intention of the defendants was to divide the meat
among themselves- act of revenge
Is it malicious mischief if the act of damaging
anothers property was inspired, not by hatred
or by a desire for revenge, but by the mere
PLEASURE of destroying? YES!
If no malice, only civil liability.
shooting at the pigs animals were loose inside his rice
plantation causing damage to his farm
A cut small coconut trees on a disputed land for the
purpose of cultivating. He believed that the coconut
trees belonged to him.
Meaning of damage in malicious mischief
diminution of what is a mans own. Includes defacing it.
It is theft when there is intent to gain.
removes or makes use of the fruits or objects of the
damage
Damaging of property must not result from
crime.
mere incidents of robbery-civil liability.
May a person charged with malicious mischief be
found guilty of damage to property through
reckless imprudence?
Yes. Reckless imprudence is a way of committing it
What are the cases of malicious mischief as
regards the means employed and the nature of
the damaged properties?
1) Special cases of malicious mischief (ART 328)
2) Damage and obstruction to means of
communications (ART 330)
3) Destroying or damaging statues, public monuments
or paintings (ART331)
ART 328- SPECIAL CASES OF MALICIOUS
MISCHIEF
The special cases of malicious mischief are:
1) Causing damage to obstruct the performance of
public functions
2) Using any poisonous or corrosive substance
3) Spreading any infection or contagion among cattle.
4) Causing damage to the property of the National
Museum or National Library, or to any archive or
registry, waterworks, road, promenade, or any other
thing used in common by the public
These are called QUALIFIED MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
First case of qualified malicious mischief
distinguished from sedition
The element of public and tumultuous uprising is not
present in this crime.
Using poisonous or corrosive substance
may be used to kill large cattle or other animals. May
be used to rust on a machine or to destroy property
through the action of chemicals.
ART 329- OTHER MISCHIEFS
Other mischiefs should not be included in ART
328-basis of penalty is the value of the damage
caused.
Even if the amount involved cannot be estimated, the
penalty of arresto menor or fine not exceeding P200 is
fixed by law.
A groom who allowed a horse under his care to die of
hunger or a servant who released a bird from the cage,
as an act of hate or revenge against its owner- based
on the value of the horse or bird.
17- CRIMINAL LAW II
Killing cows of another as an act of revenge
The cows of B caused destruction to the plants of A. As
an act of revenge, A and his tenants killed said cows.-
ART 329 PAR 3
Scattering human excrement in public building is
other mischief value of damage cannot be
estimated
When several persons scattered coconut remnants
which contained human excrements on the stairs and
floor of the municipal building, including its interior,-
ART 329
18- CRIMINAL LAW II