Scribd
Upload
143 views2 pages

Elements of Estafa Are:: The Facts

The document defines the elements of the crime of estafa under Philippine law as: 1) The accused defrauded another through abuse of confidence or deceit. 2) Damage or financial prejudice was caused to the offended party or third person. It then provides summaries of two cases as examples: 1) People vs. Galang - Galang was accused of estafa for passing bad checks. She claimed she did not issue the checks. 2) Cabral vs. Bracamonte - Kennok issued a postdated check that bounced. Cabral filed an estafa complaint that was found to have probable cause.

Uploaded by

Eunice Kalaw Vargas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
143 views2 pages

Elements of Estafa Are:: The Facts

The document defines the elements of the crime of estafa under Philippine law as: 1) The accused defrauded another through abuse of confidence or deceit. 2) Damage or financial prejudice was caused to the offended party or third person. It then provides summaries of two cases as examples: 1) People vs. Galang - Galang was accused of estafa for passing bad checks. She claimed she did not issue the checks. 2) Cabral vs. Bracamonte - Kennok issued a postdated check that bounced. Cabral filed an estafa complaint that was found to have probable cause.

Uploaded by

Eunice Kalaw Vargas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

elements of estafa are:

(1) that the accused defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence, or (b) by means of deceit;
and
(2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or
third person.
Cases:

Based on Batac v. PP(filed with rtc)

THE FACTS

Konek recounted that on 8 November 2019, Galang and one Abegail Armas went to his store, located
inside the public market of the Baguio City to have her checks rediscounted. When Galang assured
Konek that the checks were hers and were duly funded, he was persuaded to buy a total of fourteen
(14) checks at a rediscounted rate of five percent (5%) of the total aggregate amount. Galang thereafter
affixed her signature on the face of the checks in the presence of Konek.

Upon the due dates stated on the checks, Konek attempted to deposit the checks to his bank accounts.
However, the drawee bank – PNB, Burnham Branch, Baguio City – refused payment for the reason
"Account Closed" and thus returned the checks to Konek. Konek then proceeded to Galang’s house to
demand from her payment of the equivalent amount of the said checks, giving her five (5) days within
which to complete payment. Galang failed to do so, prompting Konek to file the present case for estafa.

On the other hand, Galang maintains that it was Armas who issued and delivered the checks to Konek
for rediscounting; and that she had never met nor transacted business with Konek. According to Galang,
further raising doubt on Konek’s assertions is the fact that the proceeds being claimed still amounts to
P2,500,0000.00, the aggregate amount of the checks involved, when there should have been a
rediscounting fee of 5%; thus casting doubt on whether there was a rediscounting transaction at all.
Consequently, Galang asserts, there is reasonable doubt that she committed estafa. Furthermore,
Galang claims that if she has any criminal liability at all, it would only be for violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 (B.P. Blg. 22), or the Bouncing Checks Law, instead of estafa.

2. based on cabral v bracamonte case

FACTS:

On September 15, 2009, respondent Milca Kennok and petitioner Betty Langga executed a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in Baguio City for the purchase of shares of stock in Lolita Freight
Corporation (LFC) and AbIBI International Corporation Simultaneous with the signing of the MOA,
kEnnok issued a postdated check to Lannga in the amount of ₱12,677,950.15. 1When the check was
presented for payment, however, the drawee bank in Baguio City dishonored the same for lack of
sufficient funds. Consequently, for failure to settle the obligation, Cabral instituted a complaint for
estafa against Kennok in Baguio City. Finding probable cause, the prosecutor filed with the RTC of Baguio
City an Information.

3. fake lawyer estafa:

You might also like