Case Digest 5-8
Case Digest 5-8
Corona J:
FACTS:
Appellant Cora Abella Ojeda used to buy fabrics (telas) from complainant
Ruby Chua. For the three years approximately she transacted business
with Chua, appellant used postdated checks to pay for the fabrics she
bought. On November 5, 1983, appellant purchased from Chua various
fabrics and textile materials worth ₱228,306 for which she issued 22
postdated checks bearing different dates and amounts.
Chua later presented to the bank for payment check no. 033550 dated
November 5, 1983 in the amount of ₱17,1003 but it was dishonored due
to "Account Closed."4 On April 10, 1984, Chua deposited the rest of the
checks but all were dishonored for the same reason. 5 Demands were
allegedly made on the appellant to make good the dishonored checks, to
no avail.
With the exception of six checks 6 which did not bear her signature,
appellant admitted that she issued the postdated checks which were the
subject of the criminal cases against her. She, however, alleged that she
told Chua not to deposit the postdated checks on maturity as they were
not yet sufficiently funded. Appellant also claimed that she made partial
payments to Chua in the form of finished garments worth ₱50,000. This
was not rebutted by the prosecution.
ISSUE:
WON the appellant is guilty of the crime estafa and violation of BP 22.
HELD:
The trial court convicted appellant of the crime of estafa as defined and
penalized under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua. The trial court also
convicted appellant of violation of BP 22 for issuing bouncing checks.
However, the court a quo held her guilty of only 14 counts out of the 22
bouncing checks issued. The court reasoned:
This is due to the fact that of the 22 checks, two of them are not
covered by the indictment. This refers to Check No. 042935 dated
November 6, 1983 in the amount of ₱1,840.19 (Exhibit D) and
Check No. 042942 dated November 10, 1983 in the amount of
₱1,941.59 (Exhibit F). And of the total number of checks, six of
them were not signed by the accused but by the latter’s husband
(Exhibits C,H,J,M,R and O). The accused should not be liable for
the issuance of the 6 checks in the absence of any showing of
conspiracy.
CASE DIGEST # 6
PADILLA V. DIZON
Adm. Case No. 3086 February 23, 1988
PER CURIAM:
FACTS:
Information was filed against the accused Lo Chi Fai with the RTC of
Pasay city for violation of Sec. 6, Central Bank Circular no. 960 where
Respondent judge presided.
ISSUE:
HELD:
The Court finds the respondent Regional Trial Court Judge, Baltazar R.
Dizon, guilty of gross incompetence, gross ignorance of the law and grave
and serious misconduct affecting his integrity and efficiency, and
consistent with the responsibility of this Court for the just and proper
administration of justice and for the attainment of the objective of
maintaining the people's faith in the judiciary (People vs. Valenzuela, 135
SCRA 712), it is hereby ordered that the Respondent Judge be
DISMISSED from the service. All leave and retirement benefits and
privileges to which he may be entitled are hereby forfeited with prejudice
to his being reinstated in any branch of government service, including
government-owned and/or controlled agencies or corporations.
CASE DIGEST # 7
GARCIA V. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 157171 March 14, 2006
QUISUMBING, J.:
FACTS:
Based on the complaint-affidavit of Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., who ran in
the 1995 senatorial elections:
On May 11, 1995, which was within the canvassing period during the
May 8, 1995 elections, in the Municipality of Alaminos, Province of
Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the accused, Election Officer Arsenia B. Garcia, Municipal
Treasurer Herminio R. Romero, Public School District Supervisor Renato
R. Viray, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Member-Secretary, respectively,
of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Alaminos, Pangasinan,
tabulators Rachel Palisoc and Francisca de Vera, conspiring with,
confederating together and mutually helping each other, did, then and
there, willfully, and unlawfully decrease[d] the votes received by
senatorial candidate Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. from six thousand nine
hundred ninety-eight (6,998) votes, as clearly disclosed in the total
number of votes in the one hundred fifty-nine (159) precincts of the
Statement of Votes by Precincts of said municipality, with Serial Nos.
008417, 008418, 008419, 008420, 008421, 008422 and 008423 to one
thousand nine hundred twenty-one (1,921) votes as reflected in the
Statement of Votes by Precincts with Serial No. 008423 and Certificate of
Canvass with Serial No. 436156 with a difference of five thousand
seventy-seven (5,077) votes.
The RTC acquitted all the accused in a decision dated September 11,
2000 for insufficiency of evidence, except Arsenia B. Garcia
Arsenia B. Garcia pronounced GUILTY of the crime defined under RA
6646, Section 27(b) and violation of Election Offense.
ISSUES:
WON violation of Section 27(b) of Rep. Act No. 6646, classified under
mala in se or mala prohibita.
WON good faith and lack of criminal intent be valid defenses.
HELD:
YSIDORO V PEOPLE
G.R. No. 192339, November 14, 2012
ABAD, J.:
FACTS
Arnold James M. Ysidoro, a municipal mayor and the complainant in
this case, was accused by the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas
of violation of illegal diversion of food intended for those suffering from
malnutrition to the beneficiaries of reconsideration projects affecting the
homes of victims of calamities.
ISSUE:
WON good faith is a valid defense for technical maversation.
HELD:
No. Dura lex sed lex. Ysidoro’s act, no matter how noble or miniscule the
amount diverted, constitutes the crime of technical malversation.
Ysidoro insists that he acted in good faith since, first, the idea of using
the SPF goods for the CSAP beneficiaries came, not from him, but from
Garcia and Polinio; and, second, he consulted the accounting
department if the goods could be distributed to those beneficiaries.
Having no criminal intent, he argues that he cannot be convicted of the
crime.
The law and the Court, however, recognize that the offense committed by
Ysidoro is not grave, warranting a mere fine.