OTHER DECEITS

Villaflor vs. CA

FACTS:
On 07 June 1967, appellant Ricardo Villaflor went to the house of complainant
Mariano Locsin, a real estate businessman, to secure a loan in the amount of P1,000.00 with
the former offering his Opel car as collateral. Both agreed that the loan would be given on the
condition that it would be secured by a proper chattel mortgage on the vehicle. With the
assurance from appellant that the car was fully paid and free from any encumbrance, a chattel
mortgage contract over the car was drafted and signed by complainant and appellant, and the
latter received the loan, which, apart from the contract, was also evidenced by a promissory
note stating that the loan amount would be repaid in eight (8) days. For failing to pay the loan
on time, complainant thought of taking appellants car but he found to his surprise that the car
was repossessed by Northern Motors for failing to pay the monthly installments therefor. For
failing to heed complainants written demands to pay the loan, appellant was charged for
estafa.

ISSUE:
Whether or not appellant is guilty of estafa by means of deceit.

HELD:
Yes. Appellant is guilty of estafa by means of deceit for employing false
misrepresentations.

RATIO:
The provisions cited by appellant are grossly irrelevant to the issue on deceit.
What is material here is the fact that appellant was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation
when, knowing that the car was then owned by the Northern Motors, Inc., still he told the
complainant that the car was actually owned by him for purposes of and at the time he
obtained the loan from the latter. Indubitably, the accused was in bad faith in the obtention of
said loan under such deliberate pretenses.
 VELOSO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:
The Sandiganbayan found petitioner Jose R. Veloso and some officials and
employees of the Siquijor Highway Engineering District guilty as co-principals of the crime of
estafa through falsification of public documents for defrauding the government in the amount
of P982,207.60 through the illegal and unauthorized issuance of fake letters of advice of
allotments, cash disbursement ceilings and tampering and falsifications of general vouchers.
Those found guilty filed separate motions for reconsideration but these were denied by the
Sandiganbayan. Thus, Veloso appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners conviction in the Sandiganbayan should be affirmed.

HELD:
Yes. Petition denied.

RATIO:

Clearly, given his acts and omissions in auditing the documents, which related not only
to one but to several transactions, petitioner's participation in the conspiracy to defraud the
Government has been established beyond reasonable doubt. It is well-settled that there need
not be direct evidence of the existence and details of the conspiracy. Like the guilt of the
individual offender, the existence of a conspiracy and a conspirator's participation may be
established through circumstantial evidence.

Petitioner, as resident auditor of the SHED was tasked with ensuring the regularity of all
transactions that are subject to his review. In these cases, he had before him, for his signature,
vouchers that were patently irregular, supported by similarly irregularly issued documents,
which he should not have passed in audit. Instead of refusing to affix his signature and
reporting the irregularities to his superiors, as he was duty bound to do, he turned a blind eye
and signed the documents, completing the process that led to the consummation of the crime.

He can not rely on the excuse that his subordinates have already initialed the
documents for his signature because his function, as their superior, is to check on their work
and to ensure that they do it correctly. Otherwise, if his signature was a superfluity, petitioner
would be serving no useful purpose in occupying his position of resident auditor.
 CABALLES vs DAR

The spouses Yolanda, petitioner, and Arturo Caballes acquired a 60 sq. m. portion of a
landholding in Lawaan, Talisay, Cebu from Millenes. Prior to the acquisition, private respondent
Bienvenido Abajon constructed a house, paying monthly rents to Millenes, and planted corn,
bananas and camote over time on that same portion. After acquisition, the spouses told Abajon
that they would be building a poultry close to his house and persuaded him to transfer to the
southern portion of the landholding. Abajon offered to pay monthly rents to them but they
declined. The spouses asked Abajon to vacate the premises saying they badly needed the
property but Abajon was adamant so they confronted him in front of the Barangay Captain, and
exerted efforts to oust him from the property but he simply refused to budge. Petitioner
alleged in an Affidavit that after she reprimanded Abajon for harvesting bananas and jackfruit
without her knowledge, the latter, with malicious and ill intent, cut down the banana trees on
the property. A criminal case for malicious mischief was filed against Abajon.

Whether or not private respondent is guilty of malicious mischief.

NO. After a review of the facts and circumstances, the criminal case against the private
respondent is dismissed.

The private respondent can not be held criminally liable for malicious mischief in cutting
the banana trees because, as an authorized occupant or possessor of the land, and as planter of
the banana trees, he owns said crops including the fruits thereof The private respondent's
possession of the land is not illegal or in bad faith because he was snowed by the previous
owners to enter and occupy the premises. In other words, the private respondent worked the
land in dispute with the consent of the previous and present owners. Consequently, whatever
the private respondent planted and cultivated on that piece of property belonged to him and
not to the landowner. Thus, an essential element of the crime of malicious mischief, which is
"damage deliberately caused to the property of another," is absent because the private
respondent merely cut down his own plantings.