Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 435 views

    Estafa, G.R. No. 198932, October 9, 2019 - Set A

    Uploaded by

    Jan-Nere Japay
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Memorandum of Agreement between Danilo Ibanez and the private complainant was a contract to sell, not an agency agreement. As such, Ibanez did not commit the crime of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code, as there was no evidence that he misappropriated or converted funds. The Court found that ownership of the property was transferred to Ibanez as the vendee upon signing of the contract. Therefore, the private complainant's remedy was a civil case to demand fulfillment or cancellation of the obligation, not a criminal case for estafa.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Estafa, G.R. No. 198932, October 9, 2019 - Set A

    Uploaded by

    Jan-Nere Japay
    435 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Memorandum of Agreement between Danilo Ibanez and the private complainant was a contract to sell, not an agency agreement. As such, Ibanez did not commit the crime of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code, as there was no evidence that he misappropriated or converted funds. The Court found that ownership of the property was transferred to Ibanez as the vendee upon signing of the contract. Therefore, the private complainant's remedy was a civil case to demand fulfillment or cancellation of the obligation, not a criminal case for estafa.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest for Criminal Law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Memorandum of Agreement between Danilo Ibanez and the private complainant was a contract to sell, not an agency agreement. As such, Ibanez did not commit the crime of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code, as there was no evidence that he misappropriated or converted funds. The Court found that ownership of the property was transferred to Ibanez as the vendee upon signing of the contract. Therefore, the private complainant's remedy was a civil case to demand fulfillment or cancellation of the obligation, not a criminal case for estafa.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    435 views2 pages

    Estafa, G.R. No. 198932, October 9, 2019 - Set A

    Uploaded by

    Jan-Nere Japay
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Memorandum of Agreement between Danilo Ibanez and the private complainant was a contract to sell, not an agency agreement. As such, Ibanez did not commit the crime of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code, as there was no evidence that he misappropriated or converted funds. The Court found that ownership of the property was transferred to Ibanez as the vendee upon signing of the contract. Therefore, the private complainant's remedy was a civil case to demand fulfillment or cancellation of the obligation, not a criminal case for estafa.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Danilo S. Ibanez vs.

    People of the Philippines


    G.R. No. 198932 (October 9, 2019)
    Bersamin,C.J.:

    DOCTRINE

    The offense of estafa as defined under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised
    Penal Code requires misappropriation or conversion of money. Absent any
    evidence proving misappropriation or conversion, the accused cannot be justly
    convicted of said crime.

    It cannot be committed if the transaction is a sale by which the ownership of the


    thing sold transfers to the accused as the vendee even if the vendor does not pay
    the proceeds in full by the vendee. The former only becomes an unpaid vendor,
    whose remedy is to enforce the sale.

    FACTS

    In 2002, Accused and Private Complainant entered into a Memorandum of Agreement


    (MOA). Under such MOA the accused is a purchaser of the property of the complainant
    of which he undertakes to sell the same subsequently. To add, to make this possible,
    they agreed that the accused shall execute a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) for the sale
    of such property payable for a period of 24 months. The accused failed to deliver the
    amount, thus this case. The complainant argues that there was mere agency, on the
    other hand, the accused argues that there was a contract to sell.

    ISSUE

    1. Is the MOA a contract to sell or an agency; what is its effect, if any?


    2. Is there estafa under Article 315, par. 1 (b) of the RPC when there is no proof of
    conversion or misappropriation?

    RULING
    1. The MOA is a contract to sell. There was no crime of estafa under Art. 315, par. 1 (b)
    of the RPC.

    With the transaction entered into by the parties being a sale, the petitioner as the vendee
    did not receive the property subject of the sale in trust or under an obligation to return:
    The parties’ agreement to transfer the title upon payment of the purchase price rather
    placed the petitioner in the position of an owner and made him liable to the transferor as
    a debtor for the agreed price; he was not merely an agent who must account for the
    proceeds of a resale. The petitioner did not incur criminal liability for estafa, for, as earlier
    explained, the right of the complainants as unpaid vendors was only to demand the
    fulfillment or the cancellation of the obligation.

    2. There is none.

    The words “convert” and “misappropriate” connote the act of using or disposing of
    another’s property as if it were one’s own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use different
    from that agreed upon. Yet, the Prosecution notably did not establish the element of
    misappropriation or conversion because the ownership of the property subject of the sale
    had been meanwhile transferred to the petitioner as vendee.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy