Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 47 views

    Scribd Upload Estafa

    Uploaded by

    ianmaranon2
    The document discusses three key points: 1) A compromise agreement made after an information has been filed in court is not sufficient to divest the prosecution of its power to exact criminal liability for the crime charged. The crime being an offense against the state, only the state can renounce it. Novation may prevent criminal liability from arising or cast doubt on the transaction, but it is not a means under the Penal Code to extinguish criminal liability. 2) The Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying a motion to dismiss a criminal estafa case based on a compromise agreement made after the information was filed, as the agreement did not invalidate the criminal case. 3) A dissent

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Scribd Upload Estafa

    Uploaded by

    ianmaranon2
    47 views2 pages
    The document discusses three key points: 1) A compromise agreement made after an information has been filed in court is not sufficient to divest the prosecution of its power to exact criminal liability for the crime charged. The crime being an offense against the state, only the state can renounce it. Novation may prevent criminal liability from arising or cast doubt on the transaction, but it is not a means under the Penal Code to extinguish criminal liability. 2) The Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying a motion to dismiss a criminal estafa case based on a compromise agreement made after the information was filed, as the agreement did not invalidate the criminal case. 3) A dissent

    Original Description:

    estafa decision of the supreme court

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses three key points: 1) A compromise agreement made after an information has been filed in court is not sufficient to divest the prosecution of its power to exact criminal liability for the crime charged. The crime being an offense against the state, only the state can renounce it. Novation may prevent criminal liability from arising or cast doubt on the transaction, but it is not a means under the Penal Code to extinguish criminal liability. 2) The Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying a motion to dismiss a criminal estafa case based on a compromise agreement made after the information was filed, as the agreement did not invalidate the criminal case. 3) A dissent

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    47 views2 pages

    Scribd Upload Estafa

    Uploaded by

    ianmaranon2
    The document discusses three key points: 1) A compromise agreement made after an information has been filed in court is not sufficient to divest the prosecution of its power to exact criminal liability for the crime charged. The crime being an offense against the state, only the state can renounce it. Novation may prevent criminal liability from arising or cast doubt on the transaction, but it is not a means under the Penal Code to extinguish criminal liability. 2) The Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying a motion to dismiss a criminal estafa case based on a compromise agreement made after the information was filed, as the agreement did not invalidate the criminal case. 3) A dissent

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    1.

    REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; COMPROMISE


    AGREEMENT MADE AFTER FILING OF INFORMATION NOT
    SUFFICIENT TO DIVEST PROSECUTION OF POWER TO EXACT
    CRIMINAL LIABILITY. — The Court, speaking through J.B.L. Reyes
    in People v. Nery, 10 SCRA 244, said that "the Novation theory
    may perhaps apply prior to the filing of the criminal information in
    court by the state prosecutors because up to that time the
    original trust relation may be converted by the parties into an
    ordinary creditor-debtor situation, thereby placing the
    complainant in estoppel to insist on the original trust but after the
    justice authorities have taken cognizance of the crime and
    instituted action in court, the offended party may no longer divest
    the prosecution of its power to exact the criminal liability, as
    distinguished from the civil since the crime being an offense
    against the state, only the latter can renounce it" (People v.
    Gervacio, 54 Off. Gaz. 2898; People v. Velasco, 42 Phil. 76; U.S.
    v. Montañez, 8 Phil. 620). As regards the role of novation in a
    criminal case, the Court further stated that "novation is not one
    of the means recognized by the Penal Code whereby criminal
    liability can be extinguished; hence, the role of novation may only
    be to either prevent the rise of criminal liability or to cast doubt
    on the true nature of the original basic transaction, whether or
    not it was such that its breach would not give rise to penal
    responsibility, as when money loaned is made to appear as a
    deposit, or other similar disguise is resorted to (cf. Abeto v.
    People, 90 Phil. 381; U.S. v. Villareal, 27 Phil. 481)."
    clubjuris

    2. ID.; ID.; INFORMATION FOR ESTAFA; MOTION TO DISMISS;


    DENIAL, NOT A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. — The
    respondent Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion
    amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s motion to
    dismiss the criminal case of estafa on the basis of a compromise
    agreement made after the filing of the information, which
    petitioner claimed novated the contract embodied in the trust
    receipts on which the information was based and converted the
    transaction from a criminal violation to civil obligation.

    TEEHANKEE, J., dissenting: clubjuris


    1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; TRUST RECEIPT
    TRANSACTION GIVES RISE TO CIVIL LIABILITY WHEN A
    COMPROMISE AGREEMENT FOR DISCHARGE HAS BEEN MADE
    AFTER THE FILING OF INFORMATION. — The trust receipt
    transaction, more so when there has been a compromise
    agreement after the filing of the information for the discharge of
    petitioner-accused’s liability under the importation covered by the
    trust receipt, gives rise only to civil liability on the part of the said
    petitioner-accused. In People v. Cuevo, G.R. No. L-27607, May 7,
    1981, the dissent of Justice Teehankee stated that the old
    capitalist orientation of putting importers in jail for supposed
    estafa or swindling for non-payment of the price of the imported
    goods released to them under trust receipts (a purely commercial
    transaction), under the fiction of the trust receipt device, should
    no longer be permitted in this day and age.

    You might also like