mavii

Court’s Decision: 1. The Supreme Court resolved the appeal by holding that a breach of a trust receipt agreement post-P.D. 115 indeed constitutes estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. 2. The Court concluded that trust receipts are not mere loan transactions; they possess a security aspect needing protection. 3.

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.

In holding that there was no violation of the accused's constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against her, this Court held that the elements of the crime of other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code also constitute one (1) of the elements of estafa by means of deceit under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code:

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.

SUPREME COURT Manila. FIRST DIVISION. G.R. No. 163662 February 25, 2015. PEOPLE ... "Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, if the offense is punished by the Revised Penal Code, such as estafa, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances ...

The only instance when an indorser may be held criminally liable for estafa or the violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is when the indorser acted in conspiracy with the issuer of the check. Thus, in Ramos-Andan v. People, G.R. 136388, 14 March 2006, the Supreme Court held that the indorser of a check was liable for estafa under Article 315(2)(d) ...

– The lower court’s view was challenged, focusing on the implication that a potential violation of banking laws did not preclude prosecution for estafa under the penal code. Issues: 1. Whether Article 1980 of the Civil Code removed the facts from criminal liability, categorizing the transaction as a simple loan instead of deposit. 2.

“To the benefit of private respondents, the Court of Appeals ruled, citing Sesbreno v.Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 671 (1995), that the subject transactions are akin to money market placements which partake the nature of a loan, the non-payment of which does not give rise to criminal liability for estafa.X x x. Sesbreno affirmed that a money market transaction partakes the nature of a loan ...

The petitioners then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court. Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners are personally liable for El Oro Corporation’s debts under the trust receipts. 2. Whether their liability is solidary with that of El Oro Corporation. 3. Whether their acquittal of estafa extinguished their civil liability. Court’s Decision: 1.

The Supreme Court reviewed consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari from decisions of the Sandiganbayan that found petitioners Conchita M. Dela Cruz and Maximo A. Borje guilty of Estafa through Falsification of Documents and Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Case Reference: G.R. No. 236807 and G.R. No. 236810

Meet the Justices Clerk of the Court Rules Orders Code of Judicial Administration Live & Archived Video Opinions High Profile Cases Cases Before the Court

To differentiate the crime of Estafa from Theft, the Supreme Court made a discussion in the case of Ricafort v. Fernan: ... Estafa and Violation of Bouncing Checks Law, how do they differ? In the Philippines, B.P. 22, commonly referred to as the Bouncing Checks Law, and Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code are the laws that penalize the ...

The Supreme Court clarified this in the case of San Diego vs. ... There are many Supreme Court decisions that rule in cases of Estafa. Some of the jurisprudence discussing Estafa are, to wit: ... in layman’s term, calling such an offense because there is a violation of the trust reposed upon the offender as in Qualified Theft. Thus ...

The State Bar of Arizona is a non-profit organization that operates under the supervision of the Arizona Supreme Court. The Bar regulates approximately 18,500 active attorneys and provides education and development programs for the legal profession and the public. The Bar's mission states that it exists to serve and protect the public with respect to the provision of legal services and access ...

Nierras then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking annulment of the trial court’s resolution. Issues: The primary issue laid before the Supreme Court was whether prosecuting Nierras for both estafa under the Revised Penal Code and the violation of BP 22 concurrently constituted double jeopardy.

MANILA-- The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated the importance of following the rules on lower courts' jurisdiction, particularly in cases relating to estafa.. In a 10-page decision dated January 23 this year, the SC, through Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals in an estafa case between two parties, which signed a Memorandum of Agreement for a deal in ...

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.

The professional conduct of attorneys and the discipline process is governed by Rules 41-74, Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court. Certificates of Good Standing Committee Disciplinary Cases Matrix Disciplinary Commission & Hearing Officer Report Disposition of Attorney Discipline Cases

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 ...

After remarkable Supreme Court rebuke, Trump administration slams ‘meritless litigation’ The White House’s statement comes as the Trump administration faces a firestorm of criticism from ...