Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    Milla v. People, GR No. 188726, January 25, 2012

    Uploaded by

    Jemson Ivan Walcien
    1) Cresencio Milla fraudulently sold property to Market Pursuits, Inc. (MPI) by showing them falsified documents and collecting payment of P2 million, but failed to transfer the property. 2) When MPI discovered the fraud and demanded their money back, Cresencio claimed novation had occurred by issuing worthless checks to MPI before a complaint was filed. 3) The court ruled novation did not extinguish criminal liability for the estafa, which was a public offense that must be prosecuted. The checks only aimed to return the original payment and bounced, so could not satisfy the liability.

    Copyright:

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

    Milla v. People, GR No. 188726, January 25, 2012

    Uploaded by

    Jemson Ivan Walcien
    19 views1 page
    1) Cresencio Milla fraudulently sold property to Market Pursuits, Inc. (MPI) by showing them falsified documents and collecting payment of P2 million, but failed to transfer the property. 2) When MPI discovered the fraud and demanded their money back, Cresencio claimed novation had occurred by issuing worthless checks to MPI before a complaint was filed. 3) The court ruled novation did not extinguish criminal liability for the estafa, which was a public offense that must be prosecuted. The checks only aimed to return the original payment and bounced, so could not satisfy the liability.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    Crim 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?

    1) Cresencio Milla fraudulently sold property to Market Pursuits, Inc. (MPI) by showing them falsified documents and collecting payment of P2 million, but failed to transfer the property. 2) When MPI discovered the fraud and demanded their money back, Cresencio claimed novation had occurred by issuing worthless checks to MPI before a complaint was filed. 3) The court ruled novation did not extinguish criminal liability for the estafa, which was a public offense that must be prosecuted. The checks only aimed to return the original payment and bounced, so could not satisfy the liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    19 views1 page

    Milla v. People, GR No. 188726, January 25, 2012

    Uploaded by

    Jemson Ivan Walcien
    1) Cresencio Milla fraudulently sold property to Market Pursuits, Inc. (MPI) by showing them falsified documents and collecting payment of P2 million, but failed to transfer the property. 2) When MPI discovered the fraud and demanded their money back, Cresencio claimed novation had occurred by issuing worthless checks to MPI before a complaint was filed. 3) The court ruled novation did not extinguish criminal liability for the estafa, which was a public offense that must be prosecuted. The checks only aimed to return the original payment and bounced, so could not satisfy the liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Milla v. People, GR No.

    188726, January 25, 2012

    Facts:
    In March, 2003, Cresencio Milla represented himself as a real estate developer from a company
    in Makati engaged in selling business properties therein and offered to Market Pursuits, Inc.,
    represented by Carlo, a property in Makati, showing to him a photocopy of the title in the name of
    spouses Handog. Carlo verified the title with the Registry of Deeds and confirmed its authenticity.
    Convinced, Carlo purchased the property for P2 Million, first issuing a Security Bank check for
    P1.6 Million. Cresencio then handed him a copy of a notarized Deed of Sale signed by spouses
    Handog and owner’s duplicate copy of the title. After Cresencio gave Regino, Carlo’s partner, a
    copy of the new title, MPI tendered to Cresencio the balance of P400,000.00 through a check.
    Because Cresencio failed to turn over receipts for transfer taxes, Carlo verified with the Registry
    of Deeds, where he discovered that there was no transfer of property from the Handog spouses
    to MP of the property covered in the old title, and that the new title was registered in the name of
    a certain Matilde M. Tolentino. When Carlo demanded the return of the money, Cresencio failed,
    thus MPI filed a case for estafa through falsification against Cresencio. Cresencio argues that
    novation had set in, with his issuance of Equitable PCI checks to MPI before the filing of the
    complaint against him.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the criminal liability of Cresencio is extinguished by novation before the filing of
    the complaint and that it converted his obligation into a civil one.

    Ruling:
    No. The criminal liability for estafa already committed is then not affected by the subsequent
    novation of contract, for it is a public offense which must be prosecuted and punished by the State
    in its own conation. In the case at bar, the acceptance by MPI of the Equitable PCI checks
    tendered by Milla could not have novated the original transaction, as the checks were only
    intended to secure the return of the P2 million the former had already given him. Even then, these
    checks bounced and were thus unable to satisfy his liability. Moreover, the estafa involved here
    was not for simple misappropriation or conversion, but was committed through Milla’s falsification
    of public documents, the liability for which cannot be extinguished by mere novation.

    You might also like