Revised Penal Code: Macandog Magtira v. People of The Philippines
Revised Penal Code: Macandog Magtira v. People of The Philippines
Revised Penal Code: Macandog Magtira v. People of The Philippines
Estafa; elements. The Supreme Court ruled that all the above elements [of
estafa] are present in this case, having been established by the
prosecution’s evidence and by the petitioner’s own admissions. The first
element was established by the evidence showing that the petitioner
received various sums of money from the private complainants to be held in
trust for them under the Paluwagan operation. The petitioner admitted that
she was under obligation, at a fixed date, to account for and to deliver the
Paluwagan funds to the private complainants in the sequential order agreed
upon among them. The second element was established by the evidence
that the petitioner failed to account for and to deliver the Paluwagan funds
to the private complainants on the agreed time of delivery. The third and
fourth elements of the offense were proven by evidence showing that the
petitioner failed to account for and to deliver the Paluwagan funds to the
private complainants despite several demands made upon her by the private
complainants. Each of the private complainants testified as to how they were
prejudiced when they failed to receive their allotted Paluwagan funds. Given
the totality of evidence, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the
petitioner of the crime charged. Esla Macandog Magtira v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 170964, March 7, 2012.
APPLICABLE LAWS
5.1. Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code on deceit/swindling (estfa)
provides any person who shall defraud another by any of the means
mentioned therein shall be punished by the penalty of prision correccional in
its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of
the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if
such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph
shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional
10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed
twenty years; provided that the fraud be committed by any of the following
means:
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
X x x.
(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.
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
X x x.
(a) 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 offender. In this case,
the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the
penalty.
(b) By post-dating 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 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 of insufficiency of funds shall be prima
facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.
(As amended by Republic Act No. 4885, approved June 17, 1967.)
5.2. Article 316 (other forms of swindling) of the Revised Penal Code
provides that the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium
periods and a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not
more than three times such value, shall be imposed upon “any person
who, to the prejudice of another, shall execute any fictitious
contract.”
5.3. Article 318 (other deceits) of the Revised Penal Code provides that the
penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of not less than the amount of the
damage caused and not more than twice such amount shall be imposed
upon any person who shall defraud or damage another by “any other
deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles of this chapter.”
(1) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for
account or for value;
(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.
Estafa; elements. The first element of estafa under Art. 315, par. 1(b), requires that the money,
goods, or other personal property must 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 it. The second element requires that there be misappropriation or conversion or such
money or property by the offender.
The second element is the very essence of estafa under Art. 315, par. 1(b). The words “convert”
and “misappropriated” connote an act of using or disposing of another’s property as if it were
one’s own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To
misappropriate for one’s own use includes not only conversion to one’s personal advantage, but
also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without a right. Here, the goods received
by petitioner were not held in trust, neither were they intended for sale. Petitioner did not
likewise have any duty to return them as the goods were only intended for use in the fabrication
of steel communication towers. Neither was there any misappropriation as petitioner’s liability
for the amount of the goods arises and becomes due only upon receipt of the proceeds of the sale,
and not prior to the receipt of the full price of the goods. Anthony L. Ng vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 173905, April 23, 2010
Estafa; elements. The elements of estafa in general are: (a) that an accused defrauded another by
abuse of confidence, or by means of deceit; and (b) that damage and prejudice capable of
pecuniary estimation is caused the offended party or third person. Rosita Sy vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010
Estafa by deceit; elements. The elements of estafa by means of deceit are: (a) that there must be
a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent
representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means
and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended
party suffered damage. Rosita Sy vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010
Estafa by false pretenses or fraudulent acts; elements. The act complained of in the instant case is
penalized under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC, wherein estafa is committed by any
person who shall defraud another by false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. It is committed by using fictitious name, or by
pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. Rosita Sy vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010
Estafa; illegal recruitment. Illegal recruitment and estafa cases may be filed simultaneously or
separately. The filing of charges for illegal recruitment does not bar the filing of estafa, and
vice versa. The acquittal of the accused in the illegal recruitment case does not prove that she is
not guilty of estafa. Illegal recruitment and estafa are entirely different offenses and neither one
necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the other. A person who is convicted of illegal
recruitment may, in addition, be convicted of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the
Revised Penal Code. In the same manner, a person acquitted of illegal recruitment may be held
liable for estafa. Double jeopardy will not set in because illegal recruitment
is malum prohibitum, in which there is no necessity to prove criminal intent, whereas estafa
is malum in se, in the prosecution of which, proof of criminal intent is necessary. Rosita Sy vs.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010
Estafa; ways of commission. Swindling or estafa is punishable under Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code. The three ways of committing are: (1) with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence;
(2) by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts; or (3) through fraudulent means. The three
ways of committing estafa may be reduced to two, i.e., (1) by means of abuse of confidence; or
(2) by means of deceit. Rosita Sy vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010
In a Decision dated April 8, 2003, the trial court convicted appellant for the
crime of estafa as defined and penalized under paragraph 2(d), Article 315
of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced her to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12) years of prision mayor as
minimum to twenty-two (22) years of reclusion perpetua as maximum and
to indemnify complainant Reynaldo Solis in the amount of P50,000.00.
Appellant elevated the case to the Court of Appeals but the adverse ruling
was merely affirmed by the appellate court in its Decision dated February
12, 2008.
Hence, appellant interposed an appeal before the Supreme Court and put
forth a single assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
FINDING THE ACCUSED–APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
OF THE CRIME OF ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 315, PAR. 2 (D) OF THE
REVISED PENAL CODE.
The Court cited Paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code
provides:
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). – Any person who shall defraud another
by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow x x x:
xxxx
xxxx
From the circumstances, the Court held that it was evident that Solis
would not have given P50,000.00 cash to appellant had it not been for her
issuance of the 10 Prudential Bank checks. These postdated checks were
undoubtedly issued by appellant to induce Solis to part with his cash.
However, when Solis attempted to encash them, they were all dishonored by
the bank because the account was already closed.
Solis wrote appellant a demand letter dated October 13, 1996 which
was received by appellant’s husband to inform appellant that her postdated
checks had bounced and that she must settle her obligation or else face legal
action from Solis. Appellant did not comply with the demand nor did she
deposit the amount necessary to cover the checks within three days from
receipt of notice. This gave rise to a prima facie evidence of deceit, which is
an element of the crime of estafa, constituting false pretense or fraudulent
act as stated in the second sentence of paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Appellant wished to impress upon the Court that she voluntarily parted
with her blank but signed checks not knowing or even having any hint of
suspicion that the same may be used to defraud anyone who may rely on
them. Verily, appellant’s assertion defies ordinary common sense and
human experience, the Court stated.