Topic: Estafa US vs. Villanueva Facts

Topic: Estafa
US vs. Villanueva
Facts:
Villanueva went to the house of Borlasa to examine their house as he was instructed by the forestry
officer. After observing that the new house was built with new lumber he demanded to the complainant
the sum of 6 pesos and 2 reals for the purpose of avoiding a fine and with a view of preparing a petition
for obtaining a free permit to cut timber. The complainant was unable to pay the said amount but
offered 3 pesos that the defendant refused to accept.
Issue:
Whether or not the defendant was guilty of attempted estafa
Ruling:
Yes, Villanueva was guilty of attempted estafa as defined and punished by section 1 article 535 in
connection with article 66 of the Penal Code. The facts established by the evidence in this case show
that the attempt was made to obtain the sum of 6 pesos and 2 reals by fraudulent representations and
for purposes not justified or authorized by the forestry law. If the estafa was not consummated it was
because the complainant could not or would not pay the amount demanded and simply offered a little
less than half, which the defendant in turn refused to accept.
Agustin Villanueva is guilty as author by direct participation of a crime of attempted estafa. Although the
defendant did not succeeded in obtaining the money upon the fraudulent pretext of having been
authorized by the forester, the fact is that he attempted to obtain the amount demanded and refused
to receive the 3 pesos which the complainant offered him, this being less than one-half of the amount
demanded.
------------------------
US vs. Dominguez
Facts:
Dominguez, who was a salesman of the bookstore, sold five copies of books. The accused allegedly did
not deliver to the cashier the payment for the sold books as it was his duty. The accused argued that he
was not able to deliver the said payment as the cashier was busy and it was not his intention to make
use of the said money. The accused delivered the cash to the cashier upon asking him for the money.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of consummated estafa or just frustrated estafa
Ruling:
The accused-appellant is guilty of frustrated estafa inasmuch as he performed all the acts of execution
which should produce the crime as a consequence, by which by reason of causes independent of his
will he did not produce it, no appreciable damage having been caused to the offended party, such
damage being one of the essential elements of the crime due to the timely discovery of the acts
prosecuted.
--------------------------
Salcedo vs. CA
Facts:
The petitioner is the local branch manager of a company engaged in property insurance. The company
was suspended from operating and was essentially closed by the Insurance Commissioner. However, the
petitioner still issued a fire insurance policy to Basilio Ponce and collected the amount of P1,095.00 as a
premium. Basilio Ponce thereafter, came to know the status of the company so he immediately
demanded the premium to be given back, however the petitioner refused to make a refund. The
petitioner argued that he cannot be criminally liable because he was not aware that the company was
suspended therefore forbidden to engage in business transaction.
Issue:
Was the petitioner guilty of estafa through employing false pretenses or fraudulent representations in
the negotiation and issuance of the fire insurance policy?
Ruling:
Yes. The petitioner as the local branch manager of the company has knowledge that the company was
no longer authorized to conduct insurance business when he signed the issued policy and collected the
premium payment thereof. This knowledge makes him liable under par. 2(a) of art. 315 of RPC which
provides that:
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 a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means
of other similar deceits.
To secure a conviction for estafa under par. 2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised penal Code, the following
requisites must concur, to wit: (1) that the accused made false pretenses or fraudulent
representations as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions: (2) that such false pretenses or fraudulent representations were made prior
to, or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud; (3) that such false premises or fraudulent
representations constitute the very cause which induced the offended party to part with his money or
property, and (4) that s a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. All these requisites are
present in the case at bar.
The deliberate concealment of the petitioner of the fact that the company ceased to be authorized to
engage in insurance business when he signed and issued the fire insurance policy and collected the
premium payment constitutes false representations or false pretenses.
Dissenting:
Teehankee, voted for the acquittal of the accused because the evidence of the case is not sufficient to
prove the willful criminal intent so as to the presumption of innocence of the accused. There was no
intent to defraud on his part. "Intent to defraud must be coetaneous with the alleged deceitful act or
antecedent to the damage and not a supervening circumstance.” Neither did the petitioner personally
gain from the transaction.

Topic: Estafa US vs. Villanueva Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic: Estafa US vs. Villanueva Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic: Estafa US vs. Villanueva Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic: Estafa

Whether or not the defendant was guilty of attempted estafa

You might also like