mavii

The Court’s Rules and various forms of guidance to filers can be obtained on the "Rules and Guidance” page. ... who may not have the financial resources to pay the Court’s filing fee or to submit booklet-format documents under Court Rule 33.1. The “Supreme Court Bar” page provides information to attorneys who may wish to seek ...

Forms for Use with Industrial Commission Special Actions : Form Name. Instructions/ Reference to Court Rule . Description. Application for Deferral or Waiver of Court Fees. PDF Fillable : Used to apply for a waiver or deferral of filing fees when the applicant is unable to pay at the beginning of the case. Petition. PDF Fillable. RPSA Rule 22(c)

The Judicial Branch's Law Library Resource Center in Maricopa County has the tools and resources to navigate the court system including court forms, live educational workshops, recorded video tutorials, self-help tools, and helpful staff.

Court Rules Rules of the Supreme Court (Effective January 1, 2023) (PDF); Summary of 2023 Rules Changes; Historical Rules of the Supreme Court; Guidance Guidelines for the Submission of Documents to the Supreme Court’s Electronic Filing System (Updated January 1, 2023) (PDF); Guide to Filing Paid Cases (January 2023) (PDF) ; Guide to Filing In Forma Pauperis Cases (January 2023) (PDF)

The appellate court observed that the law is silent with regard to the form of demand in estafa under Art. 315 1(b), thus: When the law does not qualify, the Supreme Court should not qualify. Should a written demand be necessary, the law would have stated so. Otherwise, the word "demand" should be interpreted in its general meaning as to ...

After a careful scrutiny of the case records, the Court rules that there is no probable cause to indict respondent Jaye of the crime of Estafa under paragraphs 2(a) and 1(b), Article 315 of the RPC. Not all the elements of the crime of Estafa under paragraphs 2(a) and 1(b), Article 315 of the RPC are present in the case at bench.

The appellate court observed that the law is silent with regard to the form of demand in estafa under Art. 315 1(b), thus: When the law does not qualify, We should not qualify. Should a written demand be necessary, the law would have stated so. ... The Supreme Court ratiocinates in this case that the failure to account upon demand, for funds or ...

The core issue to be resolved is whether or not the CA correctly affirmed petitioners' conviction for estafa defined and penalized under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the RPC. Ruling of the Court. We find merit in the motions for reconsideration and accordingly, the Court reconsiders its Resolution dated September 6, 2017.

According to the Supreme Court, in the case of People v. Manantan, in an agency for the sale of jewelries, it is the agent's duty to return the jewelry upon demand of the owner and failure to do so is evidence of conversion of the property by the agent. In other words, the demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the accused to account for it are circumstantial ...

A sum of money received by an employee on behalf of the employer is merely in the material, not juridical, possession of the employee; hence misappropriation of such money does not constitute estafa.. Thus, reiterated the Supreme Court’s First Division, in a Decision penned by Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez, as it ordered on ground of reasonable doubt the acquittal for estafa of a former ...

Revised Criminal Rules Forms 4a and 4c, Release Questionnaire The pretrial Release Questionnaires located in the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure were revised on January 1, 2025. Form 4a-Release Questionnaire ( Form No. AOCCR41FORM04A ) and Form 4c-Release Questionnaire ( Form No. AOCCR41FORM04C ) are available in a Word format.

There are many Supreme Court decisions that rule in cases of Estafa. Some of the jurisprudence discussing Estafa are, to wit: In People v. Villapando, 21 the Supreme Court ruled that the presence of good faith made is a valid defense against the crime of Estafa which led to the acquittal of the accused. It was explained that:

The trial court ruled that all the elements of estafa by deceit under Article 315 (2)(a) of the RFC were established and proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioners, through false pretenses and fraudulent acts of ostensible ownership of the subject property, deceived the spouses Dulos into buying the property and. paying the ...

The Supreme Court elucidated the crime of simple estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the RPC in the case of Remo, et al. vs. SOJ Devanadera, et al., G.R. No. 192925, 09 December 2016.The Court said that any person who causes pecuniary damage upon another through any of the acts of abuse of confidence or of deceit, as enumerated in Article 315 of the RPC, commits the crime of estafa or swindling.

Even as the district court labeled its order as a TRO, the court openly equated the two forms of relief. App., infra, 3a, 8a & n.4. Rather than maintain the status ... And as the Supreme Court has made Case: 25-1244 Document: 00118262266 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/21/2025 Entry ID: 6708248 26a - 8 - clear, "[t]he fact that a judicial remedy may ...

The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the estafa conviction of an engineer who concealed the blacklisting of his sole proprietorship, rejecting his claim that he transacted with clients in his personal capacity and that the juridical personality of his business is separate. ... Spouses Yumang suffered damages in the form of defective and ...

Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 (632) 8524-2706: libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph: ... Any person or persons who shall commit estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, ...

This document discusses jurisprudence related to investment scams. It begins by defining key legal terms and outlining the elements of syndicated estafa under Presidential Decree No. 1689. It then summarizes the Supreme Court rulings in four cases involving Ponzi schemes and fraudulent investment corporations. These cases found the defendants guilty of syndicated estafa for deceiving investors ...

The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether the lower courts erred in convicting petitioner of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the RPC. The Court's Ruling. The Petition is meritorious. Preliminarily, determination of guilt is fundamentally a factual issue which the Court generally does not entertain in a Rule 45 petition.