Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Estafa
1. Define Estafa
Estafa is a criminal offense wherein a person defrauds another by the following means:
2) By DECEIT;
3) By FRAUDULENT MEANS/
Estafa is committed by a person who defrauds another causing him to suffer damage, by means of
unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, or of false pretense or fraudulent acts.
(d) Availing of services of hotel, inn, restaurants etc. without paying therefor.
(c) Removing, concealing, or destroying, in whole or in part, any record, office files, document and
other papers.
5. What are the indispensable elements of estafa?
Estafa has two indispensable basic elements:
6. What is Fraud?
Fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts,
omissions and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence justly
reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is
taken of another. It is a generic term embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can
device, and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another by false
suggestions or by suppression of truth and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any
unfair way by which another is cheated. And deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact
whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which
should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so he shall act upon it to
his legal injury. The false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously
with the commission of the fraud. (Alcantara v. Court of Appeals, 416 SCRA 418 (1998))
Deceit is a species of fraud. (Garcia v. People, G.R. No. 144785, 11 September 1985)
It is true that it is sometimes said that "deception with intent to defraud" is an essential requisite of
the crime of estafa, but while this is true as to estafas in general, it is not true of
those estafas mentioned in the article under consideration, except in so far the abuse of confidence in
misappropriating the funds or property after they have come to the hands of the offender may be said
to be a fraud upon the person injured thereby. (United States v. Pascual, G.R. No. L-4265, 26
March 1908)
(a) The offended party being deprived of his money or property as a result of the defraudation;
Certainly, disturbance of property rights is equivalent to damage and is in itself sufficient to constitute
injury within the meaning of Art. 315, par. 1 (b) of the RPC. (Batulanon v. People, G.R. No.
139857, 15 September 2006)
9. What are the elements of Estafa with unfaithfulness, under Article 315, par. 1 (a) of
the Revised Penal Code?
The elements of Estafa under Article 315, 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code,
(a) That the offender has an onerous obligation to deliver something of value;
11. What are the elements of Estafa with abuse of confidence, under Article 315, par. 1 (b)
of the Revised Penal Code?
The elements of Estafa under Article 315, 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code,
(a) That money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on
commission or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of
or to return the same;
(b) That there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial
on his part of such receipt; and
The second element establishes three ways in which estafa may be committed under this category:
1. Misappropriation of the thing received the act of taking something for ones own benefit;
2. Conversion of the thing received the act of using or disposing of anothers property as it was
ones own;
3. Denial of the receipt of the thing received.
It is well-settled that the essence of estafa thru misappropriation is the appropriation or conversion of
money or property received to the prejudice of the owner (U.S. vs. Ramirez, 9 Phil. 67).
Failure to account upon demand, for funds or property held in trust, is circumstantial evidence of
misappropriation. (People v. Sullano, G.R. No. L-18209, 30 June 1966)
13. What do you mean by denial of the receipt of the thing received?
It means that a person who has possession of a thing, does not return or denies receiving the thing to
the owner.
b) Juridical Possession It is present when the possession of the personal property arises from a
lawful causation, contract or agreement, express or implied, written or unwritten or by virtue of a
provision of law.
When the money, goods, or any other personal property is received by the offender from the offended
party (1) in trust or (2) on commission or (3) for administration, the offender acquires both material
or physical possession and juridical possession of the thing received. (Santos v. People, 181 SCRA
487, 1990)
Juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing which the
transferee may set up even against the owner.
However, if the offender has been given Juridical Possession and Material Possession of the personal
property and he misappropriates the same, he is liable for the crime of ESTAFA.
Theft should not be confused with estafa. According to Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino in his book
on the Revised Penal Code, "The principal distinction between the two crimes is that in theft the thing
is taken while in estafa the accused receives the property and converts it to his own use or benefit.
However, there may be theft even if the accused has possession of the property. If he was entrusted
only with the material or physical (natural) or de factopossession of the thing, his misappropriation of
the same constitutes theft, but if he has the juridical possession of the thing, his conversion of the
same constitutes embezzlement or estafa."
(d) That the taking be done without the consent of the owner;
(e) That the taking be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons or
force against things.
There can be no estafa without a previous demand. Demand may be made in whatever form. The law
does not require a demand as a condition precedent to the existence of the crime of embezzlement. It
so happens only that failure to account, upon demand for funds or property held in trust, is
circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. The same however, be established in the case at
bar. (Tubb v. People, G.R. No. L-9811, 22 April 1957)
The word "Demand" need not be used to show that demand had, indeed, been made upon the person
charged with the offense. A query as to the whereabouts of the money is tantamount to a
demand. (Barrameda v. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 477)
No specific type of proof is required to show that there was demand. Demand need not even be
formal; it may be verbal. (Lee v. People, G.R. No. 157781, 11 April 2005)
In a prosecution for estafa, demand is not necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation or
conversion. (Sy v. People, G.R. No. 85785, 24 April 1989)
The consummation of the crime of [estafa] does not depend on the fact that a request for the return
of the money is first made and refused in order that the author of the crime should comply with the
obligation to return the sum misapplied. The appropriation or conversion of money received to the
prejudice of the owner thereof [is] the sole essential [fact] which constitute the crime of [estafa], and
thereupon the author thereof incurs the penalty imposed by the [RPC]. (Salazar v. People, 439
Phil. 762)
Even if demand is not required by law, it is necessary to prove misappropriation. Failure to account,
upon demand, is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. (Tan v. People, G.R. No. 153460, 29
January 2007)
17. What are the elements of Estafa by taking undue advantage of the signature in blank,
under Article 315, par. 1(c) of the Revised Penal Code?
The elements of Estafa by taking undue advantage of the signature in blank are:
(a) That the paper with the signature of the offended party be in blank;
(b) That the offended party should have delivered it to the offender;
(c) That above the signature of the offended party a document is written by the offender without
authority to do so;
(d) That the document so written creates a liability of, or causes damage to the offended party or
any third person.
18. What are the elements of Estafa by means of deceit, under Article 315, par. 2 of the
Revised Penal Code?
The elements of Estafa by means of deceit are as follows:
(a) That there must be false pretenses, fraudulent act or fraudulent means;
(b) That such pretenses, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
(c) That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of false pretense,
fraudulent act, or fraudulent means;
19. What are the acts which would constitute a deceitful act?
As a general rule, in order to constitute deceit, there must be a false representation as a matter of
fact, a positive assertion of falsehood. (People vs. Manahan, CA- G.R. No. 19602-R, 20 May
1958)
It might also consist in a fraudulent misrepresentation or contrivance by which one man deceives
another who has no means of detecting the fraud to the injury of another. (People vs. Babel, 10
CAR 133)
There is no deceit if the complainant was aware if the fictitious nature of the pretense.
20. What if the element of deceit was done AFTER the fraudulent act?
One of the elements of estafa is that The false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to
or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. If deceit was not present or occurred after the
commission of the fraud, there is no estafa. Likewise also, if the deceit was not the motivating factor
for the offended party to get involved in a transaction with the offending party.
21. If there was no fraud on the part on the offending party, will the case for Estafa
prosper?
No. Fraud is an element of Estafa. Its absence is fatal to the prosecution of the case. When the
allegation of deceit has not been proven, there is no Estafa. (Candido dela Cruz, CA 37 O.G. 1958)
1. i. Power
2. ii. Influence
3. iii. Qualifications
4. iv. Property
5. v. Credit
6. vi. Agency
7. vii. Business or imaginary transactions
iii) By means of other similar deceits
b) Art. 315, 2 (b) By altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining to his
business.
c) Art. 315, 2 (c) By pretending to have bribed any government employee
ii) That such postdating or issuing a check was done when the offender had no funds in the bank
or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check.
ii) By obtaining credit at any of the said establishments by the use of any false pretense;
iii) By abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage from any of the said
establishment after obtaining credit, food, refreshment or accommodation therein, without paying
thereof.
However, if the check was issued by the debtor for the security of the creditor, but not to be
encashed, no estafa is involved.
The law penalizes the issuance of a check only if it were itself the immediate consideration for the
reciprocal receipt of benefits. In other words, the check must be issued concurrently with, and in
exchange for, a material gain to make it a punishable offense under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the
Revised Penal Code. (Castro v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 50173, 21 September 1993)
24. I issued a check to my grocer as advance payment for the groceries he would be
delivering. Without my knowledge, my husband had emptied my account. What will
happen?
You will not be charged for the crime of estafa since there is already a pre-existing obligation between
you and your grocer, with the check as payment for the groceries he would be delivering to you. You
did not issue the check prior or simultaneous with any act of fraud, thus it is not the cause of the
fraud.
It was the rule that the mere issuance of a check with knowledge on the part of the drawer that he
had no funds to cover its amount and without informing the payee of such circumstances, does not
constitute the crime of estafa if the check was intended as payment of a pre-existing obligation. The
reason for the rule is that deceit, to constitute estafa, should be the efficient cause of the defraudation
and as such should either be prior to, or simultaneous with the act of fraud. (People v. Lilius)
In the issuance of a check as payment for a pre-existing debt, the drawer derives no material benefit
in return as its consideration had long been delivered to him before the check was issued. In short,
the issuance of the check was not a means to obtain a valuable consideration from the payee. Deceit,
to constitute estafa should be the efficient cause of the defraudation.(People v. Fortuno)
Good faith is a defense in a charge of estafa by postdating or issuing a check (People v. Villapando,
56 Phil. 31)
25. I sent a notice of dishonor to my cousin, who issued me a check as payment for my
catering services. I had found out that his account had no funds. Was deceit involved?
Deceit may not be incolved as your cousin could be charged for the violation of B.P. 22, or the
Bouncing Check Law.
There is prima facie evidence of deceit when the drawer fails to pay or make arrangement for payment
three days after receiving notice of dishonor.
26. Would charging a person for the crime of estafa and violation of the Bouncing Check
law, put him in double jeopardy?
No. A person can be charged with two (2) distinct and separate offenses, first under Section 1 of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22 or the Bouncing Check Law and another under Article 315, 2 (d) of the Revised
Penal Code.
Deceit and damage are essential elements in Article 315 2(d) but are not required in B.P. 22. Under
B.P.22, mere issuance of a check that is dishonored gives rise to the presumption of knowledge on the
part of the drawer that he issued the same without sufficient funds and hence punishable which is not
so under the Revised Penal Code. (Nierras v. Dacuycuy, G.R. No. 59568-76, January 11, 1990)
While the filing of the two sets of Information under the provisions of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 and
under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, on estafa, may refer to identical acts
committed by petitioner, the prosecution thereof cannot be limited to one offense, because a single
criminal act may give rise to a multiplicity of offenses and where there is variance or differences
between the elements of an offense in one law and another law as in the case at bar there will be no
double jeopardy because what the rule on double jeopardy prohibits refers to identity of elements in
the two (2) offenses. Otherwise stated prosecution for the same act is not prohibited. What is
forbidden is prosecution for the sameoffense. Hence, the mere filing of the two (2) sets of information
does not itself give rise to double jeopardy (People v. Miraflores, 115 SCRA 570).
27. What are the differences between Esatafa and B.P. 22?
Other differences between the two also include the following:
(a) Damage and deceit are essential elements in Article 315 2(d) but they are not required in B.P.
22.
(b) A drawer of a dishonored check may be convicted under B.P. 22 even if he had issued the same
for a pre-existing obligation, while under Article 315 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, such
circumstance negates criminal liability;
(c) Specific and different penalties are imposed in each of the two offenses;
(d) Estafa is essential a crime against property, while violation of B.P. 22 is principally a crime
against public interest as it does injury to the entire banking system;
(e) Violations of Article 315 are mala in se, while those of B.P. 22 are mala prohibita.
(Nierras v. Dacuycuy, G.R. No. 59568-76, January 11, 1990)
28. What are the other ways that estafa can be done?
Estafa can be done in the following ways also:
a) That there be court record, office files, documents or any other papers;
The crime of estafa is a continuing or transitory offense which may be prosecuted at the place where
any of the essential elements of the crime took place. One of the essential elements of estafa is
damage or prejudice to the offended party. (Buaya v. Polo, G.R. No. L-75079, 26 January 1989)
The theory is that a person charged with a transitory offense may be tried in any jurisdiction where
the offense is in part committed. In transitory or continuing offenses in which some acts material and
essential to the crime and requisite to its consummation occur in one province and some in another,
the court of either province has jurisdiction to try the case, it being understood that the first court
taking cognizance of the case will exclude the others. (Tuzon v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-27410, 28
August 1975)
Home
Firm
Services
Profiles
Contact Us
Contact Information
Atty.Rainier R. Mamagun
Unit 2305 Antel Global Corporate Center,
#3 Julia Vargas, Ortigas Center,
Pasig City
Philippines
Mobile : +63 9998843531
Email : mycounsel@ymail.com
Copyright 2011 Atty.Rainier R. Mamagun