1. JOY LEE RECUERDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , June 27, 2006, G.R.

No. 168217
Facts:
Sometime in the second week of December 1993, at around 7:30 in the evening,
Recuerdo went to the house of Floro in Meycauayan, Bulacan and purchased from her
two pieces of jewelry, to wit: a 2.19 carat diamond round stone in white gold setting
worth P220,000.00 pesos, and one piece of loose 1.55 karat marquez diamond with a
value of P130,000.00 pesos. For the 2.19 carat diamond stone, accused issued and
delivered to the complainant then and there ten post-dated checks each in the amount
of P22,000.00 drawn against Unitrust Development Bank, Makati Commercial Center
Branch. Only six (6) postdated checks, to wit: Checks Nos. 014356, 014357, 014358,
014359 and 014360 are subject of Criminal Case No. 2750-M-94. For the 1.55 carat
marquez loose diamond, accused issued and delivered to complainant then and there ten
(10) postdated checks, each in the amount of P13,000.00 drawn against PCI
Bank, Makati, Dela Rosa Branch.
In yet another transaction that transpired in the early evening of February 7, 1994,
Recuerdo once again proceeded at Floros house in Meycauayan, Bulacan and bought
another set of jewelry, this time a pair of diamond earrings worth P768,000.00 pesos. She
was given seven (7) postdated checks one for P168,000.00 as downpayment and another
six (6) postdated checks drawn against Prudential Bank, Legaspi Village, Makati
Branch, each for P100,000.00 representing the balance in the aggregate amount
of P600,000.00 pesos. For these reasons the crime of Estafa was charged against
Recuerdo.

Issue: WON Recuerdo is guilty of Estafa.

Ruling:
The guilt of petitioner was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code has the
following basic elements:
Postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted simultaneously
at the time the check was issued;
The postdating or issuance was done when the offender had no funds in the bank,
or that his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the
check; and Damage to the payee thereof.
The existence of the foregoing elements of the crime was concretely established
by the prosecution through convincing evidence, warranting petitioners
conviction of the offense of Estafa.
 2. YUSUKE FUKUZUME v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , November 11, 2005,
G.R. No. 143647
Facts:
Private complainant Javier Ng Yu (Yu) is a businessman engaged in buying and selling
aluminum scrap wires. Sometime in July 1991, Yu, went to the house of herein accused-
appellant Yusuke Fukuzume (Fukuzume) in Paraaque. Jovate introduced Fukuzume to Yu
telling the latter that Fukuzume is from Furukawa Electric Corporation (Furukawa) and that
he has at his disposal aluminum scrap wires. Fukuzume confirmed this information and told
Yu that the scrap wires belong to Furukawa but they are under the care of National Power
Corporation (NAPOCOR). Believing Fukuzumes representation to be true, Yu agreed to buy
the aluminum scrap wires from Fukuzume. The initial agreed purchase price
was P200,000.00.
Yu gave Fukuzume sums of money on various dates which eventually
totaled P290,000.00, broken down as follows: P50,000.00, given on July 12,
1991;P20,000.00, given on July 22, 1991; P50,000.00, given on October 14, 1991;
and, P170,000.00, given on October 18, 1991. Fukuzume admitted that he received the same
from Yu and that he still owes him the amount of P290,000.00. To support his claim that the
aluminum scrap wires being sold are indeed owned by Furukawa, that these scrap wires are
with NAPOCOR, and that Furukawas authorized representatives are allowed to withdraw and
dispose of said scrap wires, Fukuzume gave Yu two certifications dated December 17, 1991
and December 27, 1991 purportedly issued by NAPOCOR and signed by its legal counsel by
the name of R. Y. Rodriguez. At the time that Fukuzume gave Yu the second certification, he
asked money from the latter telling him that it shall be given as gifts to some of the people in
NAPOCOR. Yu gave Fukuzume money and, in exchange, the latter issued two checks, one
for P100,000.00 and the other for P34,000.00. However, when Yu deposited the checks, they
were dishonored on the ground that the account from which the checks should have been
drawn is already closed.
Subsequently, Yu called up Fukuzume to inform him that the checks bounced. When Yu
arrived at the NAPOCOR compound on the scheduled date, Fukuzume was nowhere to be
found. Hence, Yu proceeded to show the documents of authorization to NAPOCOR
personnel. However, the people from NAPOCOR did not honor the authorization letter
issued by Furukawa dated January 17, 1992. When Fukuzume failed to comply with his
undertaking, Yu sent him a demand letter asking for the refund of P424,000.00 plus loss of
profits. Subsequently, Yu filed a complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
Issue: WON Petitioner is guilty of Estafa.
Ruling:
It is evident that the prosecution failed to prove that Fukuzume committed the crime of
estafa in Makati or that any of the essential ingredients of the offense took place in the said city.
Hence, the judgment of the trial court convicting Fukuzume of the crime of estafa should be set
aside for want of jurisdiction, without prejudice, however, to the filing of appropriate charges
with the court of competent jurisdiction.
 3. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROSE DUJUA, EDITHA S. SING,
GUILLERMO "WILLY" SAMSON, RAMON SAMSON DUJUA, G.R. Nos.
149014-16, February 5, 2004

Facts:

In August 1991, private complainant Beldon Caluten, accompanied by his cousin, went to
the accused’s office, the World Pack Travel and Tours located in Suite 28, Manila Midtown
Arcade, Adriatico Street, Ermita, Manila.4 Upon Beldon’s inquiry, Ramon Dujua said that he
sends applicants abroad and gave Beldon an application form. Beldon filled up the form and
submitted it to Ramon, who told him that he must pay a processing fee and make an advance
payment. Beldon was promised work as a factory worker in Japan.6 On August 15, 1991, he paid
Ramon the processing fee of P1,000.00 and, the next day, an advance payment
of P10,000.00.7 Beldon paid Ramon an additionalP15,000.00 on August 21, 1991 as placement
fee.8 For these payments, Beldon was issued receipts9 signed by Ramon’s mother Rose
Dujua.10 On the last week of August 1991, Beldon gave another P10,000.00 to Benita Valdes,
another applicant in the accused’s office, but no receipt was issued for the amount. 11 Finally,
Beldon gaveP41,000.00 to Rose Dujua but when Beldon asked for a receipt for the latter
payment, Rose said she already gave him one.12

When, despite such payments, the promise to send Beldon to work in Japan remained
unfulfilled, Beldon asked Ramon to give him back his money. 13 Beldon never recovered his
payments, however, prompting him and his fellow applicants to file a complaint at the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

Issue: WON Dujua is guilty of Swindling.

Ruling:

The essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) the
accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13(b) or
in any prohibited activities under Art. 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the accused has not complied
with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect
to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or
overseas; and (3) the accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons,
individually or as a group. All three elements have been established beyond reasonable doubt.
 4. WILMA T. BARRAMEDA vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and LOLITA
WATANABE,G.R. No. 96428, September 2, 1999

Facts:

Lolita Watanabe first set foot in Japan as a cultural dancer, but landed later as a caretaker of a
Japanese company (TSN, September 8, 1986, p. 35). At around 6:00 p.m. of November 26, 1984,
she, together with her brother and some Japanese friends, visited her aunt (being the wife of her
mothers brother), appellant herein, at the residence of Mr. And Mrs. Edmund Guiking at Atsuigi
Base. As appellant was leaving for the Philippines the following day, Lolita Watanabe decided to
send money to her mother in the Philippines through appellant, consisting of $1,400.00 and
400,000.00 yen which, if converted to Philippine money would amount to more or less
P50,000.00. Watanabe counted the money in appellants presence, placed it inside an envelope
and handed it to appellant. The latter likewise counted the money before putting it inside her
.When she received a long distance call that day (November 26) from her mother, Lolita
Watanabe informed the latter that she was sending money through appellant.Then appellant said
Ate, it is unfortunate. There is money sent to you by your daughter from Japan but unfortunately
I misplaced it.

Issue: WON the accused is guilty of Estafa through misappropriation or conversion.

Ruling:

Accused-petitioner was charged with the crime of estafa through misappropriation or conversion
as defined in and penalized under paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code [8]. The elements of
the said crime are: (1) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in
trust, or on commission of for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to
make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such
money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that such
misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) that there is a
demand made by the offended party on the offender. The accused is guilty of the crime charged
against him.
 5. CRISTETA CHUA-BURCE vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 109595, April 27, 2000

Facts:

On August 16, 1985, Ramon Rocamora, the Manager (of Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Company, Calapan Branch, Oriental Mindoro) requested Fructuoso Peaflor, Assistant Cashier, to
conduct a physical bundle count of the cash inside the vault, which should total P4,000,000.00,
more or less. During this initial cash count, they discovered a shortage of fifteen bundles of One
Hundred Pesos denominated bills totalling P150,000.00. The One Hundred Peso bills actually
counted was P3,850,000.00 as against the balance of P4,000,000.00 in the Cash in Vault (CIV)
Summary Sheet, or a total shortage of P150,000.00. The next day, to determine if there was
actually a shortage, a re-verification of the records and documents of the transactions in the bank
was conducted. There was still a shortage of P150,000.00. An information for Estafa was filed.

Issue: WON the accused is guilty of Estafa.

Ruling:

The elements of estafa through conversion or misappropriation under Art. 315 (1) (b) of
the Revised Penal Code are: (1) that personal property is received in trust, on commission, for
administration or under any other circumstance involving the duty to make delivery of or to
return the same, even though the obligation is guaranteed by a bond; (2) that there is conversion
or diversion of such property by the person who has so received it or a denial on his part that he
received it; (3) that such conversion, diversion or denial is to the injury of another and (4) that
there be demand for the return of the property.

The first element absent. 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. The petitioner is ACQUITTED of the crime of estafa under
Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioner is ordered RELEASED from custody
unless she is being held for some other lawful cause.
 6. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VICENTE MENIL, JR., G.R. No. 115054-66,
September 12, 2000

Facts:

On August 15, 1989, accused-appellant and his wife held a meeting with the sales executives
and ushers of the ABM Development Center, Inc. at the Provincial Convention Center. At this
meeting, accused-appellant informed the sales executives that the business of ABM Development
Center, Inc. was proceeding normally and that investments were coming in. After this August 15,
1989 meeting, the sales executives continued accepting investments from the general public and
the offices of accused-appellant kept on accepting the remittances of the sales executives. By this
time, daily investments amounting to millions of pesos were pouring into the offices of ABM
Development Center, Inc. and payments of the returns became delayed. Allegedly due to the
delay in the counting of the money for release to investors, the payments which were set for
release on August 28, 1989 were completely paid only on September 18, 1989. On September
19, 1989, the ABM Development Center, Inc. stopped releasing payments. The whereabouts of
accused-appellant and his wife was also unknown.
On October 10, 1989, accused-appellant and his wife made an announcement over the radio
that payments were forthcoming and that the investors should have no cause for alarm. They also
repeated their announcement on television. Despite these assurances and despite repeated
demands made by the investors, accused-appellant released no further payments and neither did
he refund any investment remitted to him. Accused-appellant and his wife went into hiding in
Davao City but eventually they were arrested by police authorities led by a certain Colonel
Panchito. Consequently, a case for large scale swindling was filed by the City Prosecutor of
Surigao City against the accused-appellant and his wife.

Issue: WON Vicente Menil is guilty of Estafa and large-scaleswindling under PD No. 1689.

Ruling:

In the case at bench, it is not disputed that the accused-appellant failed to pay the expected
returns of the investments and/or solicitations of the private complainants. Accused-appellant
himself admits that he was not able to pay the returns on the investments due August 29, 1989
onwards. Neither did he return the amount of their investments. , the fact that accused-appellant
could not present any specific business plan or cite any donations or bequests which he received
to finance his money-making scheme clearly shows that the investment scheme which he foisted
on the unsuspecting public was fraudulent. It must be noted that according to the Articles of
Incorporation of ABM Development Center, Inc., its paid-up capital was only P11,000.00 and yet
it was able to transact business in terms of millions of pesos. It must likewise be stressed that
accused-appellant refused to answer when asked about the specifics of his business and about
how he would be able to fulfill his obligation of paying the promised exorbitant rates of return.
 7. FLORANTE SORIQUEZ vs SANDIGANBAYAN and the PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. 153526, October 25, 2005
Facts:
In an information filed with the anti-graft court and raffled to its Fifth Division,
petitioner, in his capacity as Program Director of Mt. Pinatubo Rehabilitation-Project
Management Office (MPR-PMO), along with nine others, were charged with Violation of
Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act. Specifically, petitioner and his co-accused were indicted for having allegedly conspired,
through evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, in allowing the contractor, Atlantic
Erectors, Inc., to deviate from the plans and specifications of the contract in connection with the
construction of the Pasig-Potrero River Diking System, popularly known as the Megadike.
This breach of contract allegedly resulted in the collapse of the Megadike, thereby causing
damage and undue injury to the government.
Issue: WON accused is guilty of Estafa.

Ruling:

Given the sufficiency of the testimonial and documentary evidence against petitioner, it
would, therefore, be premature at this stage of the proceedings to conclude that the prosecutions
evidence failed to establish petitioners participation in the alleged conspiracy to commit the
crime. Likewise, the Court cannot, at this point, make a categorical pronouncement that the guilt
of petitioner has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. As there is competent and sufficient
evidence to sustain the indictment for the crime charged, it behooves petitioner to adduce
evidence on his behalf to controvert the asseverations of the prosecution. Withal, respondent
court did not gravely abuse its discretion when it found that there was a prima facie case against
petitioner warranting his having to go forward with his defensive evidence.
 8. LOLITA Y. EUGENIO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 168163,
March 26, 2008
Facts:
On 14 November 1995, petitioner went to the house of private complainant Alfredo
Mangali in Tonsuya, Malabon, Metro Manila and introduced Mangali to Epifania Saquitan ,
Amalia Ablaza, and another individual. Petitioner persuaded Mangali to loan P100,000 to
Saquitan with a parcel of land in Sta. Ana, Metro Manila as security for the loan. Petitioner
assured Mangali that the Sta. Ana lot was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
171602 issued in Saquitans name. Mangali asked petitioner to confirm with the Register of
Deeds of Manila the validity of TCT No. 171602. In the afternoon of that same day, petitioner
informed Mangali that she saw the original of TCT No. 171602 on file with the Register of
Deeds of Manila. With this assurance, Mangali agreed to extend the loan subject to Saquitans
execution of a deed of sale of the Sta. Ana lot in his favor. Saquitan agreed and after the deed of
sale was signed, Mangali released the loan in two tranches to Saquitan which the latter promised
to pay on 21 December 1995.
Subsequently, petitioner, on behalf of one Lourdes Ty , sought another P100,000 loan
from Mangali, payable in January 1996 with a parcel of land in Quezon City as security. The
NBI agents brought petitioner and the other individuals arrested with her to the NBI office where
petitioner gave a statement.Upon investigation by the NBI, it was discovered that the Epifania
Saquitan who owned the Sta. Ana lot was a 79-year old woman who denied mortgaging the Sta.
Ana lot or knowing petitioner and her co-accused. This Epifania Saquitan executed an affidavit
attesting to these facts.
Issue: WON Eugenio is guilty of Estafa through Falsification.
Ruling:
The Prosecution Failed to Prove Conspiracy to Render Petitioner Liable as Principal to
Estafa Thru Falsification of Public Documents
To hold petitioner liable for the complex crime of Estafa thru Falsification of a Public
Document, the prosecution must show that she committed Estafa thru any of the modes of
committing Falsification. Under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, Falsification is
committed under any of the following modes: (1) Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting,
signature or rubric; (2) Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or
proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; (3) Attributing to persons who have
participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them; (4) Making
untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (5) Altering true dates; (6) Making any alteration or
intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning; (7) Issuing in an authenticated
form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists,
or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original;
or (8) Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry
or official book.
 On the other hand, Estafa is generally committed when (a) the accused defrauded another
by abuse of confidence, or by means of deceit and (b) the offended party or a third party suffered
damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.
Petitioner Lolita Y. Eugenio was found not guilty of the charges against her on the ground of
reasonable doubt.
 9. DELIA PREAGIDO and ULRICO BOLOTAULO vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN
and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 52341-46, November 25, 2005
Facts:
Between April to June, 1978, the public officials, who by reason of the duties of
their office, are accountable officers, and conspiring and conniving among themselves, as well as
with their private party co-accused, after having falsified or caused to have falsified Letters of
Advice of Allotment, both dated April 24, 1978 and Sub-Advices of Cash Disbursement which
are all public documents, whereby said accused made it appear that an amount of P300,000.00
had been lawfully allocated for the City of Tagbilaran from the MPH Regional Highway Office
No. VII, Cebu City, and made available For the maintenance of existing and unabandoned roads
and bridges in the City of Tagbilaran, which falsifications had been committed in connection
with the functions of their respective offices, then taking advantage of their official positions and
committing in relation to the functions of their respective offices, falsify or cause to have
falsified General Voucher, covering the sum of P49,980.00 for the payment of road shouldering
materials, with the use of the aforesaid falsified Letters of Advice of Allotment and Sub-advices
of Cash Disbursement Ceiling to support thereof and other documents, such as the Program of
Work/Budget Cost for Roads and Bridges, Request for Obligation of Allotment, Abstract of
Sealed Quotations, Purchase Orders, Record of Inspection, and other papers in support thereof,
by making it appear that the request for obligation of allotment was regularly prepared and
approved, that the bidding of materials was properly conducted, that the corresponding purchase
order was prepared in favor of the lowest bidder, and that the materials purchased were duly and
fully delivered in accordance with specifications and duly inspected, when in truth and in fact, as
the accused fully knew well, the foregoing transactions were false and simulated.
Issue: WON the accused is guilty of Estafa.
Ruling:
Petitioner Bolotaulo was convicted for his signature in the RSEs, in the abstract of sealed
quotations and for signing the general voucher certifying that the expenses are necessary, lawful
and incurred under his direct supervision, and that the price is just and reasonable and not in
excess of the current rates in the locality. He, however, contends that he merely performed his
duties and responsibilities in affixing his signatures on those documents.
Petitioner, as the Senior Civil Engineer of the Tagbilaran CEO, was the one who prepared
the three Request for Supplies or Equipment (RSEs) which were all dated April 11, 1978
allegedly on the basis of three programs of work he recommended for approval which were all
dated May 8, 1978. Notably, however, the RSEs antedated the programs of work which is an
anomalous circumstance since the RSEs needed for the prosecution of the projects are only based
on the programs of work. In fact, petitioner, in his cross-examination, admitted that he cannot
prepare a RSE without an approved program of work [28] and that it is the normal and regular
procedure; that if the program of work is prepared later than the RSE, there must be something
irregular about it.
 10. DANTE BUEBOS and SARMELITO BUEBOS vs. THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 163938, March 28, 2008

Facts:
On January 1, 1994 around 3:00 oclock in the morning, Adelina B. Borbe was in her
house at Hacienda San Miguel, Tabaco, Albay watching over her sick child. She was lying down
when she heard some noise around the house. She got up and looked through the window and
saw the four accused, Rolando Buela, Sarmelito Buebos, Dante Buebos and Antonio Cornel, Jr.
congregating in front of her hut. When she went out, she saw the roof of her nipa hut already on
fire. She shouted for help. Instead of coming to her immediate succor, the four fled.[5]

At some distance away, Olipiano Berjuela heard Adelina scream for help. Olipiano was
then drinking with Pepito Borbe to celebrate New Years Eve. Olipiano immediately ran to the
place and saw a number of people jumping over the fence. When he focused his flashlight on
them, he was able to identify Sarmelito Buebos, Dante Buebos and Antonio Cornel, Jr. [6] He also
saw Rolando Buela running away.

Issue: WON the petitioners are guilty of Arson.

Ruling:
The petitioners were convicted of Arson. The elements of arson under Sec.
3, par. 2, of PD 1613 are: (a) there is intentional burning; and (b) what is
intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling. Incidentally, these
elements concur in the case at bar.