You are on page 1of 2

Estafa vs.

BP 22 (2003) A and B agreed to meet at the latter's house to discuss B's financial
problems. On his way, one of A's car tires blew up. Before A left following the meeting, he asked
B to lend him (A) money to buy a new spare tire. B had temporarily exhausted his bank
deposits, leaving a zero balance. Anticipating, however, a replenishment of his account soon, B
issued A a postdated check with which A negotiated for a new tire. When presented, the check
bounced for lack of funds. The tire company filed a criminal case against A and B. What would
be the criminal liability, if any, of each of the two accused? Explain. 8%
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A who negotiated the unfunded check of B in buying a new tire for his
car may only be prosecuted for estafa if he was aware at the time of such negotiation that the
check has no sufficient funds in the drawee bank; otherwise, he is not criminally liable. B who
accommodated A with his check may nevertheless be prosecuted under BP 22 for having
issued the check, knowing at the time of issuance that it has no funds in the bank and that A will
negotiate it to buy a new tire, i.e., for value. B may not be prosecuted for estafa because the
facts indicate that he is not actuated by intent to defraud in issuing the check which A
negotiated. Obviously, B issued the postdated check only to help A: criminal intent or dolo is
absent.
Libel (2003) During a seminar workshop attended by government employees from the Bureau
of Customs and the Bureau of Internal Revenue, A, the speaker, in the course of his lecture,
lamented the fact that a great majority of those serving in said agencies were utterly dishonest
and corrupt. The following morning, the whole group of employees in the two bureaus who
attended the seminar, as complainants, filed a criminal complaint against A for uttering what the
group claimed to be defamatory statements of the lecturer. In court, A filed a motion to quash
the information, reciting fully the above facts, on the ground that no crime were committed. If
you were the judge, how would you resolve the motion? 8%
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I would grant the motion to quash on the ground that the facts
charged do not constitute an offense, since there is no definite person or persons dishonored.
The crime of libel or slander, is a crime against honor such that the person or persons
dishonored must be identifiable even by innuendoes: otherwise the crime against honor is not
committed. Moreover, A was not making a malicious imputation, but merely stating an opinion;
he was delivering a lecture with no malice at all during a seminar workshop. Malice being
inherently absent in the utterance, the statement is not actionable as defamatory.
Entrapment vs. Instigation (2003) Distinguish fully between entrapment and instigation in
Criminal Law, Exemplify each. 4%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In ENTRAPMENT - 1 the criminal design originates from and is already in the mind of the
lawbreaker even before entrapment; 2 the law enforcers resort to ways and means for the
purpose of capturing the lawbreaker in flagrante delicto- and 3 this circumstance is no bar to
prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker.
In INSTIGATION- 1 the idea and design to bring about the commission of the crime originated
and developed in the mind of the law enforcers; 2 the law enforcers induce, lure, or incite a
person who is not minded to commit a crime and would not otherwise commit it, into committing
the crime; and 3 this circumstance absolves the accused from criminal liability (People v. Dante
Marcos, 185 SCRA 154. [1990]).

Example of Entrapment: A, an anti-narcotic agent of the Government acted as a poseur buyer


of shabu and negotiated with B, a suspected drug pusher who is unaware that A is a police
officer. A then issued marked money to B who handed a sachet of shabu to B. Thereupon, A
signaled his anti-narcotic team to close-in and arrest B. This is a case of entrapment because
the criminal mind is in B already when A transacted with him.
Example of Instigation: Because the members of an anti-narcotic team are already known to
drug pushers. A, the team leader, approached and persuaded B to act as a buyer of shabu and
transact with C, the suspected drug pusher. For the purpose, A gave B marked money to be
used in buying shabu from C. After C handed the sachet of shabu to B and the latter handed the
marked money to C, the team closed-in and placed B and C under arrest. Under the facts, B is
not criminally liable for his participation in the transaction because he was acting only under
instigation by the law enforcers.
RA 3019; Public Officer (2003) The Central Bank (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas}, by a resolution of the monetary board, hires Theof Sto Tomas, a retired manager of a leading bank as a
consultant. Theof later receives a valuable gift from a bank under investigation by the Central
Bank. May Theof be prosecuted under Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act) for accepting such a gift? Explain. 8%
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Theof may not be prosecuted under Rep. Act 3019, but may be
prosecuted for violation of Pres, Decree No. 46, under which such act of receiving a valuable
gift is punished. Although Theof is a "public officer" within the application of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), yet his act of receiving such gift does not appear to be
included among the punishable acts under Rep. Act 3019 since he is not to intervene in his
official capacity in the investigation of the bank which gave the gift. Penal laws must be strictly
construed against the State. In any case, Theof is administratively liable.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER Yes, Theof may be prosecuted under Rep. Act 3019 because he is a
"public officer" within the purview of said law, and Theof received the valuable gift from a bank
which is under investigation by the Central Bank where he is employed as a "public officer".
Receiving gift, directly or indirectly by a public officer from a party who has a trans-action with
the Government is wrong, more so when the gift-giver is under investigation by the government
office to which the public officer is connected.