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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    Uplod

    Uploaded by

    Christalyne Balicao
    The accused enticed the victim to invest in one company by presenting fake credentials. However, the accused instead invested the money in a different company without the victim's consent. While the Supreme Court acquitted the accused of estafa, it ruled that the accused was liable for other deceit by diverting the funds into an unauthorized investment against the victim's wishes.

    Copyright:

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

    Uplod

    Uploaded by

    Christalyne Balicao
    26 views3 pages
    The accused enticed the victim to invest in one company by presenting fake credentials. However, the accused instead invested the money in a different company without the victim's consent. While the Supreme Court acquitted the accused of estafa, it ruled that the accused was liable for other deceit by diverting the funds into an unauthorized investment against the victim's wishes.

    Original Title

    uplod

    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 accused enticed the victim to invest in one company by presenting fake credentials. However, the accused instead invested the money in a different company without the victim's consent. While the Supreme Court acquitted the accused of estafa, it ruled that the accused was liable for other deceit by diverting the funds into an unauthorized investment against the victim's wishes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    26 views3 pages

    Uplod

    Uploaded by

    Christalyne Balicao
    The accused enticed the victim to invest in one company by presenting fake credentials. However, the accused instead invested the money in a different company without the victim's consent. While the Supreme Court acquitted the accused of estafa, it ruled that the accused was liable for other deceit by diverting the funds into an unauthorized investment against the victim's wishes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Summary:

    The accused enticed the the victim to engage in an investment scheme for one company. When
    the accused received the money, the accused invested the same in another company different
    from which they (victim and accused) intended. Although the Supreme Court acquitted the
    accused to the crime of estafa under Art. 315, it ruled that the accused is liable for the crime of
    other deceipts under Art. 318 of the RPC.

    Doctrine:
    1) Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code is broad in application. It is intended as a catch-all
    provision to cover all other kinds of deceit not falling under Articles 315, 316, and 317 of the
    Revised Penal Code

    2) For an accused to be held criminally liable under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code, the
    following elements must exist: (a) [The accused makes a] false pretense, fraudulent act or
    pretense other than those in [Articles 315, 316, and 317]; (b) such false pretense, fraudulent act
    or pretense must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
    fraud; and (c) as a result, the offended party suffered damage or prejudice

    3) Although petitioner was charged of estafa by means of deceit under Article 315(2)(a) of the
    Revised Penal Code, she may be convicted of other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised
    Penal Code.

    As a rule, an accused can only be convicted of the crime with which he or she is charged. This
    rule proceeds from the Constitutional guarantee that an accused shall always be informed of
    the nature and cause of the accusation against him or her.[68] An exception to this is the rule
    on variance under Rule 120, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which
    states:
     

    RULE 120
    Judgment

    Section 4.  Judgment in Case of Variance Between Allegation and Proof.  When there is
    variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and the
    offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall
    be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense
    charged which is included in the offense proved.

    Rule 120, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure simply means that if there is a
    variance between the offense charged and the offense proved, an accused may be convicted of
    the offense proved if it is included in the offense charged. An accused may also be convicted of
    the offense charged if it is necessarily included in the offense proved.

    3) In Sales v. Court of Appeals,[69] the accused was charged with estafa by means of deceit
    under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code. She was convicted of other deceits under
    Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code. In holding that there was no violation of the accused's
    constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against her, this Court held that the
    elements of the crime of other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code also
    constitute one (1) of the elements of estafa by means of deceit under Article 315(2)(d) of the
    Revised Penal Code:

    Facts:
    Gabriel was a proprietor of a stall in Paco Market, Manila. Sometime in December 2000,
    Osorio visited Gabriel's store and introduced herself as an agent of the Philippine American
    Life and General Insurance Company (Philam Life). As proof, Osorio presented her company
    ID and calling card. During their meeting, Osorio offered insurance coverage to Gabriel.  

    Osorio offered Gabriel an investment opportunity with Philam Life Fund Management.  The
    proposed investment would be placed under a time deposit scheme and would earn 20%
    annually. Osorio informed Gabriel that the proceeds of her investment may be channeled to
    pay for her insurance premiums. Enticed by the offer, Gabriel tendered P200,000.00 to Osorio,
    who in tum issued Philam Life receipts.

    Gabriel discovered that her insurance policies had lapsed due to non-payment of premiums.
    When Gabriel confronted Osorio about the matter, Osorio assured Gabriel that she would take
    responsibility.

    Gabriel received a letter from Philippine Money Investment Asset Management (PMIAM),
    thanking her for investing in the company. In the same letter, PMIAM informed Gabriel that
    her investment would earn interest on a semi-annual basis starting June 20, 2002.  Gabriel
    confronted Osorio on why her investment was diverted to PMIAM. Osorio explained that
    PMIAM investments would yield a higher rate of return. Displeased with what had happened,
    Gabriel asked for a refund of her initial investment.

    Gabriel received P13,000.00 from PMIAM as evidenced by PMIAM Voucher No. 001854.
    [16] In spite of this, Gabriel insisted on the refund.

    Later, PMIAM informed Gabriel that her initial investment and unpaid interest income would
    be released to her on May 14, 2004. Unfortunately, she was unable to recover it. She then
    visited the Philam Life office to see Osorio but she was nowhere to be found. Philam Life
    referred Gabriel to a certain Atty. Cabugoy who sent a demand letter to Osorio.
    After full trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment finding Osorio guilty beyond
    reasonable doubt of estafa under Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court of Appeals
    affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, appeal to the Supreme Court was made with the
    following issue - 

    You might also like