Ilagan vs CA Regalado NATURE : appeal Facts: 1st case July, 1990 - December, 1991 - Geruncio H.

Ilagan, Claro Piñon and Rosendo Piñon as the President, Finance Manager and SalesDirector, respectively, of the Apple Realty and Development Corporation represented themselves that they are authorized to collect/receive and issue receipts of payments from buyers Erlinda Sayasa, Rogelio Damasco, Gina G. Teston, Filomena Lanoz,Natividad Diaz, Florida Gargoles and Marcelita Ranar, accused knowing fully well that they are not authorized to do so, received an amount of P353,500. 2nd case June to Nov. 23, 1991 - Apple Realty and Development Corporation, defrauded and deceived the HOMETRUST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, represented by its MANAGER, SALLY S. GO by lying that they were authorized to sell lots and/or houses and lots to prospective buyers from Apple Realty knowing fully well that they cannot receive any form of payment from buyers, induced and convinced one MARCELITA RANARA to buy and purchase lots and/or house and lots and receive payments and issue receipts, as in fact inthe total amount of P24,000.00 6 other cases had the same issue just with different people and dates. July 21, 1992 - eight informations were filed and docketed as Criminal Cases charging petitioners Geruncio H. Ilagan, Claro Piñonand Rosendo Piñon as coconspirators in the crime of estafa Issue: WON accused should be charged with only one offense of estafasince all cases are against the Hometrust Development Corporation Held: NO. they should be charged for each offense separately since they were committed through different modes of estafa Ratio: The crime of estafa committed against Hometrust Development Corporation and those committed against the lot buyers are separate felonies. They were dictated by different criminal intents, committed under different modes of commission provided by the law on estafa, perpetrated by different acts, consummated on different occasions, and caused injury to different parties. In the first case, the Crime of Estafa against Hometrust Development Corporation was committed through unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, as provided in Paragraph 1(b) of Article 315,Revised Penal Code The operative act in the perpetration was the failure to turn over or deliver to HOMETRUST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION the amounts collected by

but there is no such requirement where the estafa was committed through deceit. In the second case. by the accused falsely pretending to possess the power to collect the payments due from said buyers. where an agent deliberately misrepresented to the land owner the real position of the prospective buyer of the land in order toinduce said owner to agree to a lower price and. and he then clandestinely misappropriated the excess. the crime of estafa was committed under both modes and he could be charged under either. more specifically as provided in Paragraph 2(a) of Article 135 of the Code.Ilagan. despite the peculiar but specific prohibition imposed by their said principal. the offense of swindling was committed bydeceit or false pretenses employed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. The felony was perpetrated through the deceitful misrepresentations which made the unauthorized collections possible The offense was consummated upon receipt by Ilagan and co. despite their duty to do so. of the amounts in the different occasions and places where the payments were made by the lot buyers who were deprived of both their money and property rights. Thus. thereafter. that is. . the agent sold the land for the higher amount which was actually agreed upon by him and the buyer. There are then two modes to commit estafa (1) abuse of confidence and damage for the corporation (2) elements of deceit and damage for the lot buyers. In estafa through abuse of confidence prior demand should be made by the offended party on the accused tocomply with the obligation before the latter may be charged criminally.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful