Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 96 views

    People vs. Co Pao Digest

    Uploaded by

    Russell John Hipolito
    The defendant was caught using counterfeit 10 peso bills to make small purchases at a store. On two occasions, he received change back from the store owner using the counterfeit bills. When the store owner later discovered the bills were fake, he confronted the defendant who promised to return the change but did not. The defendant was arrested and sentenced to prison for using the counterfeit money. The court ruled that the defendant clearly knew the money was counterfeit based on the scheme of using large bills for small purchases and his failure to provide any explanation for having the fake money when questioned by police.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People vs. Co Pao Digest

    Uploaded by

    Russell John Hipolito
    96 views2 pages
    The defendant was caught using counterfeit 10 peso bills to make small purchases at a store. On two occasions, he received change back from the store owner using the counterfeit bills. When the store owner later discovered the bills were fake, he confronted the defendant who promised to return the change but did not. The defendant was arrested and sentenced to prison for using the counterfeit money. The court ruled that the defendant clearly knew the money was counterfeit based on the scheme of using large bills for small purchases and his failure to provide any explanation for having the fake money when questioned by police.

    Original Title

    40. People vs. Co Pao Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defendant was caught using counterfeit 10 peso bills to make small purchases at a store. On two occasions, he received change back from the store owner using the counterfeit bills. When the store owner later discovered the bills were fake, he confronted the defendant who promised to return the change but did not. The defendant was arrested and sentenced to prison for using the counterfeit money. The court ruled that the defendant clearly knew the money was counterfeit based on the scheme of using large bills for small purchases and his failure to provide any explanation for having the fake money when questioned by police.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    96 views2 pages

    People vs. Co Pao Digest

    Uploaded by

    Russell John Hipolito
    The defendant was caught using counterfeit 10 peso bills to make small purchases at a store. On two occasions, he received change back from the store owner using the counterfeit bills. When the store owner later discovered the bills were fake, he confronted the defendant who promised to return the change but did not. The defendant was arrested and sentenced to prison for using the counterfeit money. The court ruled that the defendant clearly knew the money was counterfeit based on the scheme of using large bills for small purchases and his failure to provide any explanation for having the fake money when questioned by police.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff and appellee, vs. Co PAO (alias JOSE R.

    MATEO, alias
    JOSE Co TINGPO, alias ONG BUN), defendant and appellant.
    No. 38329
    October 10, 1933
    VICKERS, J.:

    FACTS:

    On the night of August 3, 1933, the accused bought from Cheng Dy's store, located on the street
    Lavezares No. 913, Manila, pork and eggs per value of P0.30 and paid for his purchase with counterfeit
    money and pretending to be paper money of P10 of those issued by the Bank of the Philippine Islands,
    and the owner of the Cheng Dy store gave the defendant the change of P9.70, and the Chinese,
    owner of the store, without any suspicion, kept the money. On the 5th of the same month of August of
    this year, again the defendant returned to Cheng Dy's store bringing another P10 bill and after making
    your purchase received P9.50 as change. As after and on the same date the owner
    the store needed money to change.

    On August 5, after exchanging the money to another store, the clerk returned with the
    information that the paper was falsified. So he shop owner sought out the defendant and returned the
    ticket telling him it was forged and the defendant promised that the next day I would return the change
    of P9.50. Assuming the shop owner that the first bill delivered to him by the defendant who had it
    saved, out was also falsified, the shop owner got angry and informed the police the fact. Co Pao was
    arrested and was sentenced to two years (2), four months (4) and one day (1) from correctional prison,
    to pay a fine of P1,000, with the corresponding subsidiary prison, in case of insolvency, to compensate
    the Chinese Cheng Dy in the sum of P19.20.

    ISSUES:

    Whether or not the accused had known that the money he used was counterfeit?

    RULING:

    Yes, the transaction was clearly a scheme to change counterfeit bank notes for lawful money.
    When patrolman Medina tried to investigate the defendant, he refused to make any explanation of his
    possession of the counterfeit note but stated that he would know what to say in court. If the accused
    had been unaware that Exhibit A was false, he would undoubtedly have immediately explained to the
    policeman the circumstances under which it came into his possession.

    The burden was on the defendant in the trial to explain satisfactorily his possession of the
    counterfeit note. This he failed to do. The evidence shows further that the defendant had no occupation
    except that of acting as agent for Chinese accused in the municipal court of Manila to secure lawyers for
    them. It is not likely that a person depending on such uncertain means of livelihood would proffer a ten-
    peso bank note every time he had occasion to pay the petty sum of 50 centavos or less.

    The penalty of prisión mayor in its medium period must be divided into three equal parts, and
    the medium thereo is from eight years, eight months and one day to nine years and four months. For
    the foregoing reasons, the defendant and appellant is sentenced to suffer eight years, eight months and
    one day of prisión mayor, to pay a fine of P10 and to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P10,
    without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs o both instances. As thus
    modified, the decision appealed from is affirmed.

    You might also like