Ilagan vs CA

Regalado

Facts:

1st case
July, 1990 - December, 1991 - Geruncio H. Ilagan, Claro Piñon and Rosendo Piñon as
the President, Finance Manager and Sales Director, 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 in the total amount of P24,000.00

6 other cases had the same issue just with different people and dates.

July 21, 1992 - eight information were filed and docketed as Criminal Cases charging
petitioners Geruncio H. Ilagan, Claro Piñon and Rosendo Piñon as co-conspirators in the
crime of estafa

Issue:
WON accused should be charged with only one offense of estafa since 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 Ilagan, despite their duty to do so.
In the second case, the offense of swindling was committed by deceit or false pretenses
employed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, more specifically
as provided in Paragraph 2(a) of Article 135 of the Code, that is, by the accused falsely
pretending to possess the power to collect the payments due from said buyers, despite
the peculiar but specific prohibition imposed by their said principal. The felony was
perpetrated through the deceitful misrepresentations which made the unauthorized
collections possible

The offense was consummated upon receipt by Ilagan and co. 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. 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 to comply with the
obligation before the latter may be charged criminally, but there is no such requirement
where the estafa was committed through deceit. Thus, where an agent deliberately
misrepresented to the land owner the real position of the prospective buyer of the land in
order to induce said owner to agree to a lower price and, thereafter, the agent sold the
land for the higher amount which was actually agreed upon by him and the buyer, and
he then clandestinely misappropriated the excess, the crime of estafa was committed
under both modes and he could be charged under either.