Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROSITA SY v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 204755 2014-09-17	SOLEDAD TRIA v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
Considering however that the amount in excess of P22,000.00 is only P1,370.00 or short of the P10,000.00 set by law to justify the imposition of incremental penalty, it is not appropriate to add an additional one (1) year to the maximum term of the penalty imposable upon the petitioner because the excess amount of P1,370.00 should be disregarded. This is pursuant to the rule that in computing the incremental penalty, the amount defrauded shall be subtracted by P22,000.00, and the difference shall be divided by P10,000.00, and any fraction of P10,000.00 shall be discarded."[34]
	GR No. 187052 2012-09-13	PEOPLE v. MELISSA CHUA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the following: (a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[28]
	GR No. 166758 2012-06-27	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. VICENTE ATILANO BRION, J.
(a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[25]
	GR No. 199150 2012-02-06	CARMINA G. BROKMANN v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
First, the offense of estafa, in general, is committed either by (a) abuse of confidence or (b) means of deceit.[8] The acts constituting estafa committed with abuse of confidence are enumerated in item (1) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; item (2) of Article 315 enumerates estafa committed by means of deceit. Deceit is not an essential requisite of estafa by abuse of confidence; the breach of confidence takes the place of fraud or deceit, which is a usual element in the other estafas.[9] In this case, the charge against the petitioner and her subsequent conviction was for estafa committed by abuse of confidence. Thus, it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove deceit as this was not an element of the estafa that the petitioner was charged with.