Você está na página 1de 3

People vs San Antonio G.R. No. L-20430 May 20, 1965 http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1965/may1965/gr_l-20430_1965.


The crimes of estafa and malversation are similar in nature in that both involve misappropriation of funds or property, the difference being that in estafa, the property or funds misappropriated is private in character whereas in malversation, the property constitutes public funds or property for which the accused as a public officer is accountable by reason of the duties of his office. In the case of U.S. vs. Cardel, 23 Phil. 207, and U S. vs. Mesina, 42 Phil. 66, it was held that estafa was consummated in the place where the accused is required to render an accounting and failed to do so. Applying the same ruling in the instant malversation case and Section 14(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court hereinbefore quoted, We hold and rule that the present case of malversation may be tried in Manila since the offense charged was consummated in Manila. (Catingub vs CA G.R. No. L-28701 March 25, 1983) http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1983/mar1983/gr_l_28701_1983.html

ESTAFA BY MEANS OF DECEIT The circumstance that the deceitful manipulations or false pretenses employed by the accused, as shown in the vouchers, might have been perpetrated in Quezon City does not preclude the institution of the criminal action in Mandaluyong where the damage was consummated. Deceit and damage are the basic elements of estafa.. The estafa involved in this case appears to be a transitory or continuing offense. It could be filed either in Quezon City or in Rizal. The theory is that a person charged with a transitory offense may be tried in any jurisdiction where the offense is in part committed. In transitory or continuing offenses in which some acts material and essential to the crime and requisite to its consummation occur in one province and some in another, the court of either province has jurisdiction to try the case, it being understood that the first court taking cognizance of the case will exclude the others (4 Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed., pp. 61-62). (Tuzon vs Cruz G.R. No. L-27410 August 28, 1975) http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1975/aug1975/gr_27410_1975.html

Besides, the crime of estafa is a continuing or transitory offense which may be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential elements of the crime took place. One of the essential elements of estafa is damage or prejudice to the offended party. The private respondent has its principal place of business and office at Manila. The failure of the petitioner to

remit the insurance premiums she collected allegedly caused damage and prejudice to private respondent in Manila. (Buaya vs Polo G.R. No. L75079 January 26, 1989) http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/jan1989/gr_l75079_1989.html

Article 315 paragraph 1 (b) estafa by misappropriation or conversion Secondly, it is erroneous for the petitioner to assume that he was in receipt of Camara's money only for the time when and at the place where he cash the check. Applying the principles of civil law on payments done thru the use of bills of exchange, 3 the delivery to Galvez of the check on April 24, 1959 in Pasay City, had the effect, when, the same was subsequently cashed, of transferring as of that date and in that place, the sum covered thereby from the drawer to the payee. This although the change from check to public notes took place at a later date and at another situs. And finally, the delivery by Camara of the check in Pasay City and its acceptance by Galvez signified not merely the transfer to the accused of money belonging to the complainant. It also marked, as shown by the chain of events established by the prosecution, the creation of a fiduciary relation between the parties. The existence of such relation either in the form of a trust, commission or administration, is, of course, an essential element of the crime of estafa by misappropriation or conversion. To put it elsewise, estafa is a continuing crime and the receipt by the accused of the check in Pasay City and his cashing of the same shortly thereafter in Manila form part of the events that make up the body of the offense. The rule that a criminal prosecution shall be instituted in the place where the offense or any of its essential ingredients was committed is thereby satisfied. (Galvez vs CA and People November 29, 1971 G.R. No. L-22760) http://lawph.com/ijuris/grl22760-galvez-v-philippines.html

Article 315 paragraph 2 (d)- estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check under Art. 315, par. 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code may be a transitory or continuing offense. 1 Its basic elements of deceit and damage 2 may independently arise in separate places. In the event of such occurrence, the institution of the criminal action in either place is legally allowed. Section 14(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: "In all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the Court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place." The theory is that a person indicted with a transitory offense may be validly tried in any jurisdiction where the

offense was in part committed. 3 However, if all the acts material and essential to the crime and requisite of its consummation occurred in one municipality or province, the court of that municipality or province has the sole jurisdiction to try the case. (People vs Yabut G.R. No. L-42847 April 29, 1977) http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/apr1977/gr_42847_1997.html