Althea Eunice R.

Bermudez 28 September 2022

3ALM – 20201051 CRIM2

1. Differentiate and enumerate the elements of:

a. Estafa with Unfaithfulness or Abuse of Confidence (Article 316)

Elements of estafa with unfaithfulness (Article 316, No.1[a])

1. that the offender has an onerous obligation to deliver something of value
2. that he alters its substance, quantity, or quality
3. that damage or prejudice is caused to another

Elements of estafa with abuse of confidence under subdivision No. 1 paragraph (b), of Article
315
1. That the money, goods, or other personal property are 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;
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 was made by the offended party to the offender

b. Estafa by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts

1. There must be false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means
2. Such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to
or simultaneously with the commission of fraud
3. 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 fraudulent means
4. As a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage

Elements of estafa by postdating a check or issuing a check in payment of an obligation as per

Article 315 No. 2 (d):
1. That the offender postdated a check or issuing a check in payment of an obligation
2. 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

c. Estafa through fraudulent means

1. Elements of estafa by inducing another to sign any document

2. The offender induced the offended party to sign a document
3. The deceit be employed to make him sign the document
4. The offended party personally signed the document
5. Prejudice be caused Elements of estafa by removing, concealing, or destroying documents:
1. There be court record, office files, documents or any other papers
2. The offender removed, concealed or destroyed any of them
 3. The offender had intent to defraud another

2. One Friday evening, M purchased grocery items from B in the amount of

P10,000.00. Since M did not have the cash, he gave B a check worth P10,000.00 given by
his client as a guarantee that M will come back the following Monday to replace the check
with his own. As promised, he returned the following Monday and replaced the check. On
the same day, B deposited M’s check with the bank which dishonored the same for lack of
sufficient funds. M failed to pay the amount despite demands. Although B had already
filed a criminal case for violation of BP 22 against M, he still asked for your advice whether
he can still file a case of estafa against M. What will be your advice?

I would state that B can also file a case for the crime of estafa against M, and it would not
be a bar to his conviction under BP 22 because said statute punishes the act of issuing a check that
is dishonored upon its presentation for payment and the deceit and damage are immaterial (Lozano
v. Martinez). Deceit and damage must be present in the case of estafa, which, in this case, happened
when M issued a check in payment of his obligation, regardless if it contains sufficient funds. M,
issuing the check without sufficient or with insufficient funds constitutes an act of deceit and is
punishable under the Revised Penal Code (US vs. Capurro; Article 315, No. 2(d), RPC).

3. Tomas, the collector of ABC Company, collected P500,000 from its customers in Metro
Manila. Instead of remitting the collections to the company, Tomas used it to finish the
construction of his house. After the president of the company demanded remittance of the
collection, Tomas pleaded to the president and offered to pay the same through salary
deduction at the rate of P25,000 per month. The president agreed and Tomas executed a
promissory note. After four months, Tomas resigned form the company and failed to
comply with the terms of the promissory note. As the company’s lawyer, you were asked
by the president if you can still prosecute Tomas for Estafa. How will you advise your
president? Why?

Yes, Tomas can still be prosecuted for the crime of estafa because the agreement between
him and the president does not affect his criminal liability, nor it may be waived or extinguished.
As per People v. Benitez, it is well settled that the criminal liability of estafa is not affected by
compromise or novation of contract, for it is a public offense that must be prosecuted and punished
by the government on its own motion even though complete reparation should have been made of
the damage suffered by the offended party. It is evident in this case that he misappropriated the
company funds because the elements of estafa by misappropriation were present, being: the money
from the collection was entrusted to the accused and he was under the obligation to deliver it to
the president, as prescribed by Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. In the case
at bar, Tomas is asked collect the amount of P500,000, which he must turn over to the ABC
Company. However, he misappropriated and used it for his personal interest, which prejudiced the
company. Lastly, there was a demand made by the president to the accused for the remittance of
the collection.
 4. Explain the elements and kinds of the crime of malicious mischief.

Malicious Mischief is composed of 3 elements, namely:

1. That the offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another;
- there must be malice to give rise to criminal liability;
- the property must belong to another
2. Such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction; and
3. That the act of damaging another’s property be committed merely for the sake of damaging
it
- presupposes hate, revenge, or other evil motives. It should be under the impulse of a
specific desire. The damage meant is inclusive of not only loss but also a diminution of
property (Article 327, Revised Penal Code).

The kinds of crimes in Malicious Mischief are:

1. Special cases of Malicious Mischief (Art. 328)
2. Other mischiefs (Art. 329)
3. Damage and obstruction to means of communication (Art. 330); and
4. Destroying or damaging statues, public monuments, or paintings (Art. 331).

Special Cases of Malicious Mischief (Art. 328) - The enumeration of the Special Cases of
Malicious Mischief are called qualified malicious mischief, namely:

1. Causing damage to obstruct the performance of public functions

2. Using any poisonous or corrosive substance
3. Spreading any infection or contagion among cattle
4. Causing damage to property of National Museum or National Library, or to any archive or
registry, waterworks, road, promenade, or any other thing used in common by the public.

Other Mischiefs (Art. 329) not included in Art. 328

Examples:
a. scattering human excrement in public building (People v. Dumlao)
b. killing of a cow as an act of revenge (People v. Valiente)
c. servant releasing a bird from a cage as an act of hate against its owner (Luis B. Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code Criminal Law Book 2).

Damage and obstruction to means of communication (Art. 330)

- It is committed by damaging any railway, telegraph, or telephone lines. The telegraph or
telephone lines must also pertain to a railway system. It must be noted that the object is to
merely cause damage, not destruction as to be distinguished from Crimes involving
Destruction (Art. 324).

Destroying or Damaging Statues, Public Monuments, or Paintings (Art. 331)

- The punishable acts are destroying or damaging statues or any other useful or ornamental
public monument and any useful or ornamental painting of a public nature

5. Can the crime of malicious mischief be committed through negligence? Explain.

 No, because negligence and malice are two different things as per Quizon v. Justice of the
Peace of Bacolor, Pampanga. Criminal intent is an element in violating this crime. Hence, it cannot
be said that one acts under the crime of malicious mischief without criminal intent.