This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-09-04 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The essential elements of the crime charged are that: (a) a check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check is issued; (b) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (c) damage to the payee thereof.[26] It is the criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of a check that is punishable, not the non-payment of a debt.[27] Prima facie evidence of deceit exists by law upon proof that the drawer of the check failed to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor. | |||||
|
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. | |||||
|
2008-06-26 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Further it is settled that it is criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of a check which is made punishable under the Revised Penal Code, and not the nonpayment of a debt. 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. Concealment which the law denotes as fraudulent implies a purpose or design to hide facts which the other party ought to have. The postdating or issuing of a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank or his funds deposited therein are not sufficient to cover the amount of the check is a false pretense or a fraudulent act.[7] | |||||
|
2007-03-22 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The reimbursement or restitution to the offended party of the sums swindled by the petitioner does not extinguish the criminal liability of the latter. It only extinguishes pro tanto the civil liability. Moreover, estafa is a public offense which must be prosecuted and punished by the State on its own motion even though complete reparation had been made for the loss or damage suffered by the offended party. The consent of the private complainant to petitioner's payment of her civil liability pendente lite does not entitle the latter to an acquittal. Subsequent payments does not obliterate the criminal liability already incurred. Criminal liability for estafa is not affected by a compromise between petitioner and the private complainant on the former's civil liability.[21] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||