OTHER DECEITS Villaflor vs. CA FACTS:
On 07 June 1967, appellant Ricardo Villaflor went to the house of complainant Mariano Locsin, a real estate businessman, to secure a loan in the amount of P1,000.00 with the former offering his Opel car as collateral. Both agreed that the loan would be given on the condition that it would be secured by a proper chattel mortgage on the vehicle. With the assurance from appellant that the car was fully paid and free from any encumbrance, a chattel mortgage contract over the car was drafted and signed by complainant and appellant, and the latter received the loan, which, apart from the contract, was also evidenced by a promissory note stating that the loan amount would be repaid in eight (8) days. For failing to pay the loan on time, complainant thought of taking appellant’s car but he found to his surprise that the car was repossessed by Northern Motors for failing to pay the monthly installments therefor. For failing to heed complainant’s written demands to pay the loan, appellant was charged for estafa. ISSUE:
Whether or not appellant is guilty of estafa by means of deceit. HELD:
Yes. Appellant is guilty of estafa by means of deceit for employing false misrepresentations. RATIO:
The provisions cited by appellant are grossly irrelevant to the issue on deceit. What is material here is the fact that appellant was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation when, knowing that the car was then owned by the Northern Motors, Inc., still he told the complainant that the car was actually owned by him for purposes of and at the time he obtained the loan from the latter. Indubitably, the accused was in bad faith in the obtention of said loan under such deliberate pretenses.
VELOSO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN FACTS:
The Sandiganbayan found petitioner Jose R. Veloso and some officials and employees of the Siquijor Highway Engineering District guilty as co-principals of the crime of estafa through falsification of public documents for defrauding the government in the amount of P982,207.60 through the illegal and unauthorized issuance of fake letters of advice of allotments, cash disbursement ceilings and tampering and falsifications of general vouchers. Those found guilty filed separate motions for reconsideration but these were denied by the Sandiganbayan. Thus, Veloso appealed. ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner’s conviction in the Sandiganbayan should be affirmed. HELD:
Yes. Petition denied. RATIO:
Clearly, given his acts and omissions in auditing the documents, which related not only to one but to several transactions, petitioner's participation in the conspiracy to defraud the Government has been established beyond reasonable doubt. It is well-settled that there need not be direct evidence of the existence and details of the conspiracy. Like the guilt of the individual offender, the existence of a conspiracy and a conspirator's participation may be established through circumstantial evidence. Petitioner, as resident auditor of the SHED was tasked with ensuring the regularity of all transactions that are subject to his review. In these cases, he had before him, for his signature, vouchers that were patently irregular, supported by similarly irregularly issued documents, which he should not have passed in audit. Instead of refusing to affix his signature and reporting the irregularities to his superiors, as he was duty bound to do, he turned a blind eye and signed the documents, completing the process that led to the consummation of the crime. He can not rely on the excuse that his subordinates have already initialed the documents for his signature because his function, as their superior, is to check on their work and to ensure that they do it correctly. Otherwise, if his signature was a superfluity, petitioner would be serving no useful purpose in occupying his position of resident auditor.
CABALLES vs DAR The spouses Yolanda, petitioner, and Arturo Caballes acquired a 60 sq. m. portion of a landholding in Lawaan, Talisay, Cebu from Millenes. Prior to the acquisition, private respondent Bienvenido Abajon constructed a house, paying monthly rents to Millenes, and planted corn, bananas and camote over time on that same portion. After acquisition, the spouses told Abajon that they would be building a poultry close to his house and persuaded him to transfer to the southern portion of the landholding. Abajon offered to pay monthly rents to them but they declined. The spouses asked Abajon to vacate the premises saying they badly needed the property but Abajon was adamant so they confronted him in front of the Barangay Captain, and exerted efforts to oust him from the property but he simply refused to budge. Petitioner alleged in an Affidavit that after she reprimanded Abajon for harvesting bananas and jackfruit without her knowledge, the latter, with malicious and ill intent, cut down the banana trees on the property. A criminal case for malicious mischief was filed against Abajon. Whether or not private respondent is guilty of malicious mischief. NO. After a review of the facts and circumstances, the criminal case against the private respondent is dismissed. The private respondent can not be held criminally liable for malicious mischief in cutting the banana trees because, as an authorized occupant or possessor of the land, and as planter of the banana trees, he owns said crops including the fruits thereof The private respondent's possession of the land is not illegal or in bad faith because he was snowed by the previous owners to enter and occupy the premises. In other words, the private respondent worked the land in dispute with the consent of the previous and present owners. Consequently, whatever the private respondent planted and cultivated on that piece of property belonged to him and not to the landowner. Thus, an essential element of the crime of malicious mischief, which is "damage deliberately caused to the property of another," is absent because the private respondent merely cut down his own plantings.
