SAMSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.
 Saw a couple at the train station looking
G.R. Nos. L-10364 and L-10376
Bautista Angelo, J.
Petitioner: Rufino T. Samson
Respondents: Court of Appeals, et al.
FACTS
 October 2, 1948 – Amado L. Cruz asked the
help of his former classmate, Rufino Samson
(petitioner) to get the checks of two claimants
at Camp Murphy.
 Samson was assured by Cruz twice of the
identity of the “claimants” and that he knew
them for a long time.
 Examined residence certificates attached to
claim papers.
 Samson and Cruz went to Lt. Manuel
Valencia
o requested to act as guarantor
o believed in the representation of Samson
and Cruz
o went with them to the Deceased Check
Delivery Section
 Secured the release of ff checks:
o Rosalina Paras (P6417.11)
o Espiridion Lascaño (P6417.10)
 Then, the three went to the Bureau of
Treasury, Finance building, to cash the
checks.
 Cashed by teller Rosario Mallari who knew
Samson.
 Rosalina Paras did not know how to sign her
name so her thumbmark was on the back of
the check.
o Samson and Francisco Ordoñez signed
as witnesses below
 Espiridion Lascaño signed at the back
o Samson signed as last indorser
 Accounts delivered to Samson and Cruz
 Francisco Ordoñez counted the money and
gave it to the claimants
 Went to Aristocrat Retaurant
o P300 to officers for their help
o +P10 Samson’s taxi fare
 given by Bonifacio Vergara
 October 4 – Severino Anda told Samson that
checks were delivered to wrong parties
 Samson left for Sorsogon to find real
claimants
suspiciously at him, and Samson suspected
that they were talking about him. From there,
he concluded that these must be the fake
claimants and reported this to the police.
 October 6
o Espiridion Lascaño was too old and
weak to leave the house
o Rosalinda Paras was at school
where she was teaching. Did not
receive check.
 October 8 – Samson reported to Sgt. Luis
Balignasan, affidavit and suspect’s
fingerprints were taken.
PROCEDURE
1. Court of First Instance (Manila)
a. Samson, jointly charged w/ Amado
Cruz & Bonifacio Vergara + two
others for the complex crime of
estafa through falsification of two
checks from PNB
b. Pled not guilty
c. Found guilty.
i. Penalty: 6yrs & 1day min.; 9yrs
4mos. & 1day prison mayor
max. + Fine of P2500 & costs.
Idemnify cost of 2 checks equal
to P5417.11
2. Court of Appeals
a. Lower court decision stands
b. Reduced penalty (Cruz + Vergara)
c. Cruz charged only w/ estafa
through gross imprudence
i. Penalty: 4mos. arresto
mayor
3. Supreme Court
a. For review
ISSUES + HOLDING
1. Whether or not Samson committed gross
imprudence:
Yes. Not willful, but negligent. No
criminal intent, but failed to take
necessary steps to ensure that the checks
are received by the actual claimants.
Assurance from a former classmate is
not enough to justify the disbursement.
He must be wary of entrusting such an
amount to people he’s never met before.
2. Whether or not offense is estafa through
falsification of checks by negligence:
Yes. Impersonators managed to secure
the checks and cash them through the
actions of the appellant.

Article 17. RPC: Estafa through

falsification of commercial document.
 Samson committed estafa by
failing to provide honest
information that is essential to
the security of said commercial
document (PNB checks)

Rule 116. Section IV: “When there is

variance between the offense charged in
the complaint or information, and that
was proved or established by the
evidence, and the offense as charged is
included in or necessarily includes the
offense proved, the defendant shall be
convicted of the offense proved
included in that which is charged or the
offense charged included in that which
is proved.”
 defendant Samson convicted of
crime that is proved. Regardless
of the mismatch between
offense charged vs what
actually happened, he will be
convicted based on what is
proven.

Section V: “Not all essential elements

of the offense charged in the
information be proved. It is sufficient
that some of said essential elements or
ingredients thereof be established to
constitute the crime proved.”
 The fact that the checks were
wrongfully claimed and cashed
through the negligent actions of
the defendant Samson was
enough to convict him.