Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. DANILO GULION

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NOS. 150926 AND 30 2006-03-06	ANITA CHUA v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
(3) that the payee has been defrauded.[11] All the elements of the crime of estafa under par. 2(d) of Art. 315, RPC are present in this case. The evidence showed and petitioner Chua admitted issuing the questioned checks in favor of private respondent in exchange for the imported goods she obtained from the latter. It is likewise not disputed that the checks she issued bounced or were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds and/or because her bank account had already been closed by the bank due to lack of funds. As a result, private respondent suffered damage. She had to close down her business because she could not recoup her losses due to the huge amount petitioner owed her.
	GR No. 157039 2004-10-01	PEOPLE v. JOSEFINA M. DIMALANTA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Furthermore, we find that appellant acted in good faith during the transaction. After the first check was dishonored, she exerted best efforts to make good the value of the check, albeit only to the extent of P25,000.00. Good faith is a defense to a charge of Estafa by postdating a check. This may be manifested by appellant's act of offering to make arrangements with complainant as to the manner of payment.[20]
	GR Nos. 104238-58 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. CORA ABELLA OJEDA CORONA, J.
The prosecution failed to prove deceit in this case. The prima facie presumption of deceit was successfully rebutted by appellant's evidence of good faith, a defense in estafa by postdating a check.[22] Good faith may be demonstrated, for instance, by a debtor's offer to arrange a payment scheme with his creditor. In this case, the debtor not only made arrangements for payment; as complainant herself categorically stated, the debtor-appellant fully paid the entire amount of the dishonored checks.
	GR No. 159280 2004-05-18	AUGUSTO SIM v. CA and The PEOPLE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Furthermore, we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court, which is in the best position to make an assessment of the witnesses' credibility and to appreciate complainants' truthfulness, honesty and candor.[26] Factual findings of trial courts, as well as their assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court more so when these are affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[27] As against the positive and categorical testimonies of the complainant, petitioner's mere denial cannot prevail.