Professional Documents
Culture Documents
to take under the theft provision of the penal code does not require asportation or carrying away. To appropriate means to deprive the lawful owner of the thing. The word take in the Revised Penal Code includes any act intended to transfer possession, which, may be committed through the use of the offenders own hands, as well as any mechanical device, such as an access device or card as in the instant case. This includes controlling the destination of the property stolen to deprive the owner of the property, such as the use of a meter tampering, as held in Natividad vs. CA, use of a device to fraudulently obtain gas, as held in US vs. Tambunting, and the use of a jumper to divert electricity. The acts of subtraction include: a. tampering with any wire, meter, or other apparatus installed or used for generating, containing, conducting, or measuring electricity, telegraph or telephone service; b. tapping or otherwise wrongfully deflecting or taking any electric current from such wire, meter or other apparatus; and c. using or enjoying the benefits of any device by means of which one may fraudulently obtain any current of electricity or any telegraph or telephone service. In the instant case, the act of conducting ISR operations by illegally connecting various equipment or apparatus to private respondent PLDTs telephone system, through which petitioner is able to resell or reroute international long distance calls using respondent PLDTs facilities constitutes all three acts of subtraction mentioned above. The business of providing telecommunication or telephone services is likewise personal property which can be the object of theft under Art. 308 of the RPC. Business may be appropriated under Sec.2 of Act No. 3952, hence, could be object of theft. While it may be conceded that international long distance calls, the matter alleged to be stolen in the instant case, take the form of electrical energy, it cannot be said that such international long distance calls were personal properties belonging to PLDT since the latter could not have acquired ownership over such calls. PLDT merely encodes, augments, enhances, decodes and transmits said calls using its complex communications infrastructure and facilities. PLDT not being the owner of said telephone calls, then it could not validly claim that such telephone calls were taken without its consent. It is the use of these communication facilities without the consent of PLDT that constitutes the crime of theft, which is the unlawful taking of the telephone services and business. The business of providing telecommunication and the telephone service are personal property under Art. 308 of the RPC, and the act of engaging in International Simple Resale is an act of engaging in International Simple Resale (ISR) is an act of subtraction penalized under said article.
fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneous with the commission of 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 the false pretense, fraudulent act or means; d. that as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. In the prosecution for estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(a) of the RPC, it is indispensable that the element of deceit, consisting in the false statement or fraudulent representation of the accused, be made prior to, or at least simultaneously with, the delivery of the thing by the complainant. Under Art. 48 of the RPC, a complex crime refers to 1. the commission of at least two grave or less grave felonies that must be both (or all) be the result of a single act, or (2) one offense must be a necessary means for committing the other (or others). Negatively put, there is no complex crime when 1. two or more crimes are committed, but not by a single act; or 2. committing one crime is not a necessary means for committing the other (or others). The falsification of a public, official, or commercial document may be a means of committing estafa, because before the falsified document is actually utilized to defraud another, the crime of falsification has already been consummated, damage or intent to cause damage not being an element of the crime of falsification of public, official or commercial document. In other words, the crime of falsification has already existed. Actually utilizing that falsified public, official or commercial document to defraud another is estafa. But the damage is caused by the commission of Estafa, not by the falsification of the document. Therefore, the falsification of the public, official or commercial document is only a necessary means to commit the estafa. Under Art. 171 (4) of the RPC, the elements of falsification of public documents through an untruthful narration of facts are: 1. the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; 2. the offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated; 3. the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and 4. the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent to injure a third person.
ranking government treasurer thus conceivably a person of stature and intelligence, is presumed, by common logic, to know better than sign any document which he knows would render him responsible, administratively or even criminally. In signing the assailed document, petitioner acknowledged and certified that the amount therein stated is his accountability. Only substantial evidence showing the contrary can possibly counteract such a documentary acknowledgment.
The material inconsistencies with regard to when and where the marking on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti.
that day forth for the alias to fall within the prohibition contained in CA 142 as amended. The repeated use of an alias within a single day cannot be deemed habitual as it does not amount to a practice or use. The required publicity in the use of alias is more than mere communication to a third person; the use of the alias, to be considered public, must be made openly, or in an open manner or place, or to cause it to become generally known. In order to be held liable for a violation of CA No. 142, the user of the alias must have held himself out as a person who shall publicly be known under that other name. In other words, the intent to publicly use the alias must be manifest. Estrada could not have intended his signing as Jose Velarde to be for public consumption by the fact alone that Lacquian and Chua were also inside the room at that time.
of signing the check despite the insufficiency of funds in the account, while the civil liability attaching to the corporation is itself the very obligation covered by the check or the consideration for its execution. Yet these civil liabilities are mistaken to be indistinct. The civil action impliedly instituted in the BP Blg. 22 action is only the civil liability of the signatory and not that of the corporation.
The testimony that the accused was 15 years old when the crime took place should be read to mean that he was not more than 15 years old as this is the more favorable reading that RA No. 9344 directs. What is controlling, therefore, with respect to the exemption form criminal liability of the CICL, is not the CICLs age at the time of the promulgation of judgment but the CICLs age at the time of the commission of the offense. In short, by virtue of R.A. No. 9344 is also justified under Art. 22 of the RPC, as amended, which provides that penal laws are to be given retroactive effect insofar as they favor the accused who is not found to be a habitual criminal. Even if dwelling as an aggravating circumstance was not alleged in the Information, established jurisprudence holds that it may nevertheless be appreciated as basis for the award of exemplary damages.
Conspiracy is significant only because it changes the criminal liability of all the accused and makes them answerable as co principals regardless of the degree of their participation in the crime. The liability of the conspirators is collective, and each participant will be equally responsible for the acts of others, for the act of one is the act of all. It is sufficient to allege conspiracy as a mode of the commission of an offense in either of the following manners: (1) by the use of the word conspire, or its derivatives or synonyms, such as confederate, connive, collude, etc; or (2) by allegations of basic facts constituting the conspiracy in a manner that a person of common understanding would know that what is intended, and with such precision as would enable the accused to competently enter a plea to a subsequent indictment based on the same facts. Conspiracy must be alleged, not merely inferred, in the information; It does not necessarily mean that the absence of the words conspiracy, conspired or in conspiracy with would signify that conspiracy was not alleged in the information; Court finds the phrase participate in and facilitate to be clear and definite allegation of conspiracy sufficient for those being accused to competently enter a plea and to make proper defense. Conspiracy as a basis of conviction must rest on nothing less than a moral certainty. While conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence, it is, nonetheless, required that to be proved by clear and convincing evidence by showing a series of acts done by each of the accused in concert and in pursuance of a common unlawful purpose. Smuggling is committed by any person who (1) fraudulently imports or brings into the Philippines any article contrary to law; (2) assists in so doing any article contrary to law; or (3) receives, conceals, buys, sells or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment or sale of such goods after importation, knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law.
latters purpose was actually to detain or to deprive the victims of their liberty, the subsequent killing of the victims constitute the crime of murder, hence the crime of kidnapping does not exist and cannot be considered as a component felony to produce the complex crime of kidnapping with murder. In fact, as we held in the aforecited case of Masilang, et. al. 142 SCRA 673 (1986), although the accused had planned to kidnap the victim for ransom but they first killed him and it was only later that they demanded and obtained the money, such demand for ransom did not convert the crime into kidnapping since no detention or deprivation of liberty was involved, hence the crime committed was only murder.
weighs, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused; If inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and will not justify a conviction.
jurisdiction of other courts cannot simply override, in the absence of an express repeal or modification, the specific provision in the RPC vesting in the RTC, as aforesaid, jurisdiction over defamations in writing or by similar means. The grant to the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over offenses committed in relation to (public) office, similar to the expansion of the jurisdiction of the MTCs, did not divest the RTC of its exclusive and original jurisdiction to try written defamation cases regardless of whether the offense is committed in relation to office. The broad and general phraseology of Section 4, Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act No. 8249, cannot be construed to have impliedly repealed, or even simply modified, such as exclusive and original jurisdiction of the RTC.
The lone declaration of an eyewitness is sufficient to convict if, as in this case, the court finds the same credible. Credibility goes into a persons integrity, to the fact that he is worthy of belief, and does not come with the number of witnesses. The non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal drug cases is an insufficient cause for acquittal. The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drug itself. This means that proof beyond doubt of the identity of the prohibited drug is essential. Chain of Custody Rule: Failure to comply strictly with the requirements of law will not render the seizure of the prohibited drugs invalid for so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.