Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Almero vs.

People, private, which charged the public officer of anti graft and corrupt
Probation is not a right but a mere privilege, an act of grace and practices act for gross ignorance of the law
clemency conferred by the State, and may be granted by the court to a
deserving defendant. Accordingly, the grant of probation rests solely Held: the failure of petitioner to validate the ownership of the land on
upon the discretion of the court. It is to be exercised primarily for the which the canal was to be built because of his unfounded belief that it
benefit of organized society, and only incidentally for the benefit of the was public land constitutes gross inexcusable negligence.
accused.16
3(e) of R.A. 3019. He is being held liable for gross and inexcusable
In Francisco v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained: negligence in performing the duties primarily vested in him by law,
Probation is a special privilege granted by the state to a penitent resulting in undue injury to private complainant
qualified offender. It essentially rejects appeals and encourages an
otherwise eligible convict to immediately admit his liability and save Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 may be committed either by dolo, as when
the state of time, effort and expenses to jettison an appeal. The law the accused acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or by
expressly requires that an accused must not have appealed his culpa as when the accused committed gross inexcusable negligence.
conviction before he can avail of probation. This outlaws the element of There is "manifest partiality" when there is a clear, notorious or plain
speculation on the part of the accused to wager on the result of his inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than
appeal that when his conviction is finally affirmed on appeal he another. "Evident bad faith" connotes not only bad judgment but also
now applies for probation as an "escape hatch" thus rendering nugatory palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral
the appellate court's affirmance of his conviction.17 obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will.
It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive
Bacasmas v Sandiganbayan design or with some motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior
Facts: surprise audit was conducted 9M was allegedly unaccounted for purposes. "Gross inexcusable negligence" refers to negligence
due to cash advances unaccounted for and payroll that were characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting
unsupported and the approving agent not being aware of any anomalies to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but
willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences
Held : insofar as other persons may be affected
Indeterminate Sentence Law
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, if the offense is punished by a People v Go
special law such as R.A. 3019, the trial court shall sentence the accused
to an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall not Facts: the Public offier died, provate officer contended that the court
exceed the maximum fixed by this law, and the minimum term shall not does not have jurisdiction over him as he is a private person not covered
be less than the minimum prescribed by the same law. The penalty for under ant graft
violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 is imprisonment for not less
than six years and one month nor more than fifteen years, perpetual
Held: At the outset, it bears to reiterate the settled rule that private
disqualification from public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in
favor of the Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained persons, when acting in conspiracy with public officers, may be indicted
wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful and, if found guilty, held liable for the pertinent offenses under Section
income. Hence, the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 month as 3 of R.A. 3019, in consonance with the avowed policy of the anti-graft
minimum to 15 years as maximum imposed by the Sandiganbayan in law to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike
the present case is within the range fixed by law constituting graft or corrupt practices act or which may lead
thereto.12 This is the controlling doctrine as enunciated by this Court in
3(e) of R.A. 3019, the essential elements of which are as follows:
1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, previous cases, among which is a case involving herein private
judicial or official functions; respondent.
2. The accused must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and The requirement before a private person may be indicted for violation
3. The action of the accused caused undue injury to any party, including of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, among others, is that such private person
the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a public officer. The
advantage or preference in the discharge of the functions of the accused. law, however, does not require that such person must, in all instances,
be indicted together with the public officer. If circumstances exist
Conspiracy:
In order to establish the existence of conspiracy, unity of purpose and where the public officer may no longer be charged in court, as in the
unity in the execution of an unlawful objective by the accused must be present case where the public officer has already died, the private
proven.79 Direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy.80 It is person may be indicted alone.
enough that there be proof that two or more persons acted towards the
accomplishment of a common unlawful objective through a chain of World Wide Web v People
circumstances, even if there was no actual meeting among them.
Facts: the respondent used the lines of PLDT and alleged that there was
Sanchez V people: no theft done
FACTS: An owner of the land claims that the land that was used in the HELD: For theft to be committed in this case, the following elements
improvement was not a public land but a land that is owned and is
must be shown to exist: (1) the taking by petitioners (2) of PLDTs
personal property (3) with intent to gain (4) without the consent of Held: Fencing is defined in Section 2(a) of P.D. 1612 as the "act of any
PLDT (5) accomplished without the use of violence against or person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy,
intimidation of persons or the use of force upon things. n Laurel, we receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy
reviewed the existing laws and jurisprudence on the generally accepted and sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of
concept of personal property in civil law as "anything susceptible of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived
appropriation."50 It includes ownership of telephone services, which are from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft."
protected by the penal provisions on theft. We therein upheld the
Amended Information charging the petitioner with the crime of theft The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as follows:
against PLDT inasmuch as the allegation was that the former was
engaged in international simple resale (ISR) or "the unauthorized (1) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
routing and completing of international long distance calls using lines,
(2) the accused, who is not a principal or on accomplice in the
cables, antennae, and/or air wave frequency and connecting these calls
commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses,
directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of the country where
keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any
destined."51 We reasoned that since PLDT encodes, augments,
manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has
enhances, decodes and transmits telephone calls using its complex
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft;
communications infrastructure and facilities, the use of these
communications facilities without its consent constitutes theft, which is (3) the accused knew or should have known that the said article, item,
the unlawful taking of telephone services and business. We then object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the
concluded that the business of providing telecommunications and crime of robbery or theft; and
telephone services is personal property under Article 308 of the Revised
Penal Code, and that the act of engaging in ISR is an act of (4) there is, on the part of one accused, intent to gain for oneself or for
"subtraction" penalized under said article. another.10

People V Cahelig Qualified Theft if present Section 6 of P.D. 1612 requires stores, establishments or entities dealing
in the buying and selling of any good, article, item, object or anything
Held: Thus, the elements of Qualified Theft, committed with grave else of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof to
abuse of confidence, are as follows: secure the necessary clearance or permit from the station commander of
the Integrated National Police in the town or city where that store,
1. Taking of personal property; establishment or entity is located before offering the item for sale to the
public.
2. That the said property belongs to another;
People v Mallari Carnapping
3. That the said taking be done with intent to gain;
Section 2 of RA 6539 defines carnapping as the taking, with intent to
4. That it be done without the owners consent; gain,of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latters
consent, or by means
5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or
intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
things. The crime of carnapping with homicide is punishable under
Section 1461 of the said law, as amended by Section 20 of RA 7659. To
6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence.8
prove the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, there
must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping, but also
Grave abuse of confidence, as an element of Qualified Theft, "must be
that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and the killing was
the result of the relation by reason of dependence, guardianship, or
perpetrated in the course of the commission of thecarnapping or on the
vigilance, between the appellant and the offended party that might
occasion thereof. Thus, the prosecution in this case has the burden of
create a high degree of confidence between them which the appellant
proving that:
abused."9
(1) Mallari took the Toyota FX taxi;
Cahiligs position was one reposed with trust and confidence,
considering that it involves "handling, managing, receiving, and
(2) his original
disbursing" money from WPESLAIs depositors and other funds of the
association.1wphi1 Cahiligs responsibilities as WPESLAI cashier criminal design was carnapping;
required prudence and vigilance over the money entrusted into her care.
(3) he killed the driver, Medel; and
Ong v People Anti fencing
(4) the killingwas perpetrated in the course of the commission of the xxxx
carnapping or on the occasion thereof. Under the last clause of Section
14 of the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 as amended by Section 20 of 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts
RA 7659, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
when the owner or driver of the vehicle is killed in the course of the
commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof.67 In this case, (a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possesspower,
the trial court considered as aggravating circumstance the commission influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
of the offense by a member of an organized or syndicated crime group transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
under Article 62 of the RPC as amended by RA 765968 and, hence,
In this case, there was no use of a fictitious name, or a false pretenseof
imposed upon Mallari the death penalty.
power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, or business.
However, under Rule 110, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, all At the most, the situation could be likened to an imaginary transaction,
aggravating and qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the althoughthe accused was already trusted with the authority to deliver
Information. This new rule took effect on December 1, 2000, but commissions toMr. Banaag. The pretense was in representing to the
applies retroactively to pending cases since it is favorable to the injured party that therewas a deliverable commission to Mr. Banaag,
appellant.69 Here, there is no allegation in the Information that Mallari when in fact there was none.Instead of unduly stretching this point, the
was a member of a syndicate or that he and his companions had Court deems it wiser to give the offense its true, formal name that of
formed part of a group organized for the general purpose of committing estafa through abuse of confidence under paragraph 1(b).
crimes for gain, which is the essence of a syndicated or organized crime
Paragraph 1(b) provides liability for estafa committed by
group.70 Hence, the same cannot be appreciated as an aggravating
misappropriating or converting to the prejudice of another money,
circumstance against Mallari. Thus, in consonance with Article 63(2) of
goods, orany other personal property received by the offender in trust or
the RPC, which provides that in the absence of any aggravating
oncommission, or for administration, or under any other obligation
circumstance in the commission of the offense, the lesser penalty shall
involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even
be applied. Mallari must, therefore, suffer the lesser penalty of reclusion
though that obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by
perpetua. 71 Mallari is also not eligible for parole pursuant to Section
denying having received such money, goods, or other property. This at
372 of RA 9346.
least, is very clearly shown by the factual allegations of the Information.
Espino v People ESTAFA
People v Wagas
The prosecutor is not required, however, to be absolutely accurate in
Estafa with issued check
designatingthe offense by its formal name in the law.
In order to constitute estafa under this statutory provision, the act of
It is hornbook doctrine, however, that what determines the
postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the
real natureand cause of the accusation against an accused is
efficient cause of the defraudation. This means that the offender must
the actual recital offacts stated in the information or
beable to obtain money or property from the offended party by reason
complaint and not the caption orpreamble of the information
of the issuance of the check, whether dated or postdated. In other words,
or complaint.
the Prosecution must show that the person to whom the check was
the crime the accused was convicted of was estafa underArticle 315, delivered would not have parted with his money or property were it not
paragraph 2(a). The elements of this crime are as follows: for the issuance of the check by the offender.

(1) that there is a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; The essential elements of the crime charged are that:

(2) that the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means is made or (a) a check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation
executed priorto or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; contracted at the time the check is issued;

(3) that the offended party relies on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or (b) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and
fraudulent means, that is, he is induced to part with his money or
(c)damage to the payee thereof.26 It is the criminal fraud or
property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent
deceit in the issuance of a check that is punishable, not the
means and (4) that as a result thereof, the offended party suffered
non-payment of a debt.
damage
Prima facie evidence of deceit exists by law upon proof that the drawer
Estafa under paragraph 2(a) is swindling by means of false pretense,
of the check failed to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check
and the words of the law bear this out:
within three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor.
Article 315.
It bears stressing that the accused, to be guilty of estafa as charged, claimed to be a notice of dishonor. To be sure, the presentation of the
must have used the check in order to defraud the complainant. What the registry card with an unauthenticated signature, does not meet the
law punishes is the fraud or deceit, not the mere issuance of the required proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused received such
worthless check an accused, though acquitted of estafa, may still be notice. It is not enough for the prosecution to prove that a notice of
held civilly liable where the preponderance of the established facts so dishonor was sent to the accused. The prosecution must also prove
warrants. Wagas as the admitted drawer of the check was legally liable actual receipt of said notice, because the fact of service provided for in
to pay the amount of it to Ligaray, a holder in due course. the law is reckoned from receipt of such notice of dishonor by the
accused.
Gamboa v People Estafa under Art. 315
Giduani v People
In this case, the elements of the crime of Estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code sought to be established by it is a basic principle in criminal law that any ambiguity in the
the prosecution are as follows: interpretation or application of the law must be made in favor of the
accused. Surely, our laws should not be interpreted in such a way that
1. That money, goods or other personal properties are the interpretation would result in the disobedience of a lawful order of
received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for an authority vested by law with the jurisdiction to issue the order.
administration, or under any other obligation involving the
duty to make delivery of or to 2. That there is a Consequently, because there was a suspension of GSMC s obligations,
misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by petitioner may not be held liable for the civil obligations of the
the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; corporation covered by the bank checks at the time this case arose.
However, it must be emphasized that her non-liability should not
3. That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice the right of El Grande to pursue its claim through remedies
prejudice of another; and available to it, subject to the SEC proceedings regarding the application
for corporate rehabilitation.
4. That there is a demand made by the offended party on the
offender.10 Capili v People

he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of


Gamboa was not confused on what she was being made to account for,
as she categorically denied that: (1) she failed to pay the Mayors permit the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy
for different branches; (2) the documents attesting to the fact that its
payment are in her possession; and (3) some of the permits are only yet
to be released. as a defense by passing the blame to one Lito Jacinto.
She never raised the said defense at the earliest opportune time when
she made a liquidation report of her cash advances.

San Mateo v People

To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the following essential elements


must be present:

(1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply


for account or for value;

(2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the


time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with
the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its
presentment; and

(3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank


for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered
the bank to stop payment.

It has been the consistent ruling of this Court that receipts for registered
letters including return receipts do not themselves prove receipt; they
must be properly authenticated to serve as proof of receipt of the letters,

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi