This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-08-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In a catena of cases, it was ruled that criminal liability for estafa is not affected by a compromise or novation of contract. In Firaza v. People[35] and Recuerdo v. People,[36] this Court ruled that in a crime of estafa, reimbursement or belated payment to the offended party of the money swindled by the accused does not extinguish the criminal liability of the latter. We also held in People v. Moreno[37] and in People v. Ladera[38] that "criminal liability for estafa is not affected by compromise or novation of contract, for it is a public offense which 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." Similarly in the case of Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Tonda[39] cited by petitioner, we held that in a crime of estafa, reimbursement of or compromise as to the amount misappropriated, after the commission of the crime, affects only the civil liability of the offender, and not his criminal liability. | |||||
|
2009-06-10 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Respondent's belated submission of evidence, which was done only after the investigation had been completed, does not merit probative value, as the same was a mere afterthought. It has been consistently held that an affidavit of recantation is unreliable and deserves scant consideration, since the asserted motives for the repudiation are commonly held suspect, and the veracity of the statements made in the affidavit of repudiation are frequently and deservedly subject to serious doubt.[26] Moreover, the OCA observed that the Daily Time Record appeared to be altered or falsified, as it was shown that there was no work on November 8, 2001 due to the inclement weather, but respondent was indicated as purportedly present. | |||||
|
2009-02-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The elements of estafa under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the RPC are (1) the postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) lack of sufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee.[22] | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is a hornbook doctrine in our criminal law that the criminal liability for estafa is not affected by a compromise, for it is a public offense which 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 private offended party.[40] Since a criminal offense like estafa is committed against the State, the private offended party may not waive or extinguish the criminal liability that the law imposes for the commission of the crime.[41] | |||||