Lawyerly

GR No. 206666

2015-01-21

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Jurisprudence educates that a preamble is not an essential part of an act as it is an introductory or preparatory clause that explains the reasons for the enactment, usually introduced by the word "whereas."[40] Whereas clauses do not form part of a statute because, strictly speaking, they are not part of the operative language of the statute.[41] In this case, the whereas clause at issue is not an integral part of the decree of the pardon, and therefore, does not by itself alone operate to make the pardon conditional or to make its effectivity contingent upon the fulfilment of the aforementioned commitment nor to limit the scope of the pardon.

GR No. 183345

2014-09-17

MA. GRACIA HAO v. PEOPLE

BRION, J.

Under Section 1 of PD No. 1689,[39] there is syndicated estafa if the following elements are present: 1) estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the RPC was committed; 2) the estafa or swindling was committed by a syndicate of five or more persons; and 3) the fraud resulted in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang nayon[s]," or farmers associations or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public.[40]

GR No. 187919

2012-04-25

RAFAEL H. GALVEZ v. CA

PEREZ, J.

These circumstances are all indicia of deceit. Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.[20]

GR No. 161651

2011-06-01

ELVIRA LATEO Y ELEAZAR v. PEOPLE

NACHURA, J.

cover only 4 hectares, in view of the protest by Alfredo Salenga (Salenga).[20] Clearly, Elca was in no position to transfer ownership of the 5-hectare Bacoor property at the time petitioners offered it to Lucero. In Alcantara v. Court of Appeals,[21] this Court, citing People v. Balasa,[22] explained the meaning of fraud and deceit, viz.: [F]raud in its general sense is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and

GR No. 164800

2009-07-22

REPUBLIC v. ESTATE OF ALFONSO LIM

VELASCO JR., J.

Fraud may be defined as the voluntary execution of a wrongful act, or a willful omission, knowing and intending the effects which naturally and necessarily arise from such act or omission.[21] In its general sense, fraud is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts and omissions and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another.[22] Fraud is also described as embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can device, and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and any unfair way by which another is cheated.[23] Fraudulent, on the other hand, connotes intentionally wrongful, dishonest, or unfair.[24]

GR No. 177944

2008-12-24

JUDITH P. ORTEGA v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

From the foregoing, swindling or estafa by false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud is committed by "using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by other similar deceits."[15]

GR No. 178836

2008-07-23

ELVIRA 'ELVIE' JOSON v. PEOPLE

TINGA, J,

It has been held by this Court that where one states that the future profits or income of an enterprise shall be a certain sum, but he actually knows that there will be none, or that they will be substantially less than he represents, the statements constitute an actionable fraud where the hearer believes him and relies on the statement to his injury.[33] In the present case, it is abundantly clear that the profits which Elvira and her co-conspirators promised to Elizabeth would not be realized.

GR NO. 162822

2005-08-25

JAIME GUINHAWA v. PEOPLE

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The CA is correct in ruling that fraud or deceit may be committed by omission. As the Court held in People v. Balasa:[45]

GR No. 144785

2003-09-11

YOLANDA GARCIA v. PEOPLE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code provides that swindling or estafa by false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud is committed by "using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by other similar deceits." The elements of estafa under this penal provision are: (1) the accused defrauded another by means of deceit; and (2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third party.[6]

GR No. 135857

2003-06-18

PEOPLE v. ADRIANO ARCA

QUISUMBING, J.

Bare denials of appellant cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declarations of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[20] The trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses straightforward and credible. As first-hand accounts, the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses, Alido and Agda, adequately established the fact of the killing and the identity of the killer. They concur in pointing to appellant, and no other, as the person who committed the crime.

GR Nos. 95891-92

2000-02-28

PEOPLE v. OSMUNDO FUERTES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

"While 'life imprisonment' may appear to be the English translation of reclusion perpetua, in reality, it goes deeper than that. First, 'life imprisonment' is invariably imposed for serious offenses penalized by special laws, while reclusion perpetua is prescribed under the Revised Penal Code. Second, 'life imprisonment', unlike reclusion perpetua, does not carry with it any accessory penalty. Third, 'life imprisonment' does not appear to have any definite extent or duration, while reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after which the convict becomes eligible for pardon, although the maximum period thereof shall in no case exceed forty (40) years."[116]

	GR No. 206666 2015-01-21	ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Jurisprudence educates that a preamble is not an essential part of an act as it is an introductory or preparatory clause that explains the reasons for the enactment, usually introduced by the word "whereas."[40] Whereas clauses do not form part of a statute because, strictly speaking, they are not part of the operative language of the statute.[41] In this case, the whereas clause at issue is not an integral part of the decree of the pardon, and therefore, does not by itself alone operate to make the pardon conditional or to make its effectivity contingent upon the fulfilment of the aforementioned commitment nor to limit the scope of the pardon.
	GR No. 183345 2014-09-17	MA. GRACIA HAO v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
Under Section 1 of PD No. 1689,[39] there is syndicated estafa if the following elements are present: 1) estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the RPC was committed; 2) the estafa or swindling was committed by a syndicate of five or more persons; and 3) the fraud resulted in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang nayon[s]," or farmers associations or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public.[40]
	GR No. 187919 2012-04-25	RAFAEL H. GALVEZ v. CA PEREZ, J.
These circumstances are all indicia of deceit. Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.[20]
	GR No. 161651 2011-06-01	ELVIRA LATEO Y ELEAZAR v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
cover only 4 hectares, in view of the protest by Alfredo Salenga (Salenga).[20] Clearly, Elca was in no position to transfer ownership of the 5-hectare Bacoor property at the time petitioners offered it to Lucero. In Alcantara v. Court of Appeals,[21] this Court, citing People v. Balasa,[22] explained the meaning of fraud and deceit, viz.: [F]raud in its general sense is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and
	GR No. 164800 2009-07-22	REPUBLIC v. ESTATE OF ALFONSO LIM VELASCO JR., J.
Fraud may be defined as the voluntary execution of a wrongful act, or a willful omission, knowing and intending the effects which naturally and necessarily arise from such act or omission.[21] In its general sense, fraud is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts and omissions and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another.[22] Fraud is also described as embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can device, and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and any unfair way by which another is cheated.[23] Fraudulent, on the other hand, connotes intentionally wrongful, dishonest, or unfair.[24]
	GR No. 177944 2008-12-24	JUDITH P. ORTEGA v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
From the foregoing, swindling or estafa by false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud is committed by "using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by other similar deceits."[15]
	GR No. 178836 2008-07-23	ELVIRA 'ELVIE' JOSON v. PEOPLE TINGA, J,
It has been held by this Court that where one states that the future profits or income of an enterprise shall be a certain sum, but he actually knows that there will be none, or that they will be substantially less than he represents, the statements constitute an actionable fraud where the hearer believes him and relies on the statement to his injury.[33] In the present case, it is abundantly clear that the profits which Elvira and her co-conspirators promised to Elizabeth would not be realized.
	GR NO. 162822 2005-08-25	JAIME GUINHAWA v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
The CA is correct in ruling that fraud or deceit may be committed by omission. As the Court held in People v. Balasa:[45]
	GR No. 144785 2003-09-11	YOLANDA GARCIA v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code provides that swindling or estafa by false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud is committed by "using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by other similar deceits." The elements of estafa under this penal provision are: (1) the accused defrauded another by means of deceit; and (2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third party.[6]
	GR No. 135857 2003-06-18	PEOPLE v. ADRIANO ARCA QUISUMBING, J.
Bare denials of appellant cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declarations of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[20] The trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses straightforward and credible. As first-hand accounts, the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses, Alido and Agda, adequately established the fact of the killing and the identity of the killer. They concur in pointing to appellant, and no other, as the person who committed the crime.
	GR Nos. 95891-92 2000-02-28	PEOPLE v. OSMUNDO FUERTES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
"While 'life imprisonment' may appear to be the English translation of reclusion perpetua, in reality, it goes deeper than that. First, 'life imprisonment' is invariably imposed for serious offenses penalized by special laws, while reclusion perpetua is prescribed under the Revised Penal Code. Second, 'life imprisonment', unlike reclusion perpetua, does not carry with it any accessory penalty. Third, 'life imprisonment' does not appear to have any definite extent or duration, while reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after which the convict becomes eligible for pardon, although the maximum period thereof shall in no case exceed forty (40) years."[116]

PEOPLE v. PRISCILLA BALASA