Article 315, par.

2(a) of the Revised Penal Code penalizes fraud or deceit

when committed as follows:

2.     by means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts

executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud:

(a)   by using fictitious name, or actions, falsely pretending to possess

power, influence, qualification, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.

“The elements of the crime of estafa under the foregoing  provision are:

(1) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means;

(2) such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;

(3) the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act
or fraudulent means and was thus induced to part with his money or
property; and

(4) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage

Estafa; elements. 

The first element of estafa under Art. 315, par. 1(b), requires that the
money, goods, or other personal property must be received by the offender
in trust or on commission, or for administration or under any other
obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return it.

The second element requires that there be misappropriation or conversion or

such money or property by the offender.

The second element is the very essence of estafa under Art. 315, par.
1(b). The words “convert” and “misappropriated” connote an act of using or
disposing of another’s property as if it were one’s own, or of devoting it to a
purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To misappropriate for one’s
own use includes not only conversion to one’s personal advantage, but also
every attempt to dispose of the property of another without a right. Here,
the goods received by petitioner were not held in trust, neither were they
intended for sale. Petitioner did not likewise have any duty to return them as
the goods were only intended for use in the fabrication of steel
communication towers. Neither was there any misappropriation as
petitioner’s liability for the amount of the goods arises and becomes due
only upon receipt of the proceeds of the sale, and not prior to the receipt of
the full price of the goods. Anthony L. Ng vs. People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 173905, April 23, 2010

Estafa; elements. 

The elements of estafa in general are: (a) that an accused defrauded

another by abuse of confidence, or by means of deceit; and (b) that damage
and prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused the offended party
or third person. Rosita Sy vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
183879, April 14, 2010

Estafa by deceit; elements. The elements of estafa by means of deceit are:

(a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his
power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent
representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false
pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with
his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party
suffered damage. Rosita Sy vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
183879, April 14, 2010

Estafa by false pretenses or fraudulent acts; elements. The act

complained of in the instant case is penalized under Article 315, paragraph
2(a) of the RPC, wherein  estafa is committed by any person who shall
defraud another by false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. It is committed by using
fictitious name, or by pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of
other similar deceits. Rosita Sy vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
183879, April 14, 2010

Estafa; ways of commission. Swindling or estafa is punishable under Article

315 of the Revised Penal Code. The three ways of committing are: (1) with
unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence; (2) by means of false pretenses or
fraudulent acts; or (3) through fraudulent means. The three ways of
committing estafa may be reduced to two, i.e., (1) by means of abuse of
confidence; or (2) by means of deceit. Rosita Sy vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010

Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or

conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which
should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another
so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa) any person who shall defraud

another by any of the means mentioned herein below x x x :

xxxx

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or

fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneous with
the commission of the fraud:

(a) By using a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to

possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of
other similar deceits. x x x.

The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the following:

a. That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or

fraudulent means;
b. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means
must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud;
c. That the offended party must have relied on the false
pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was
 induced to part with his money or property because of the
false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means;

That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage (Montano v.

People, 423 Phil. 141, 147-148 (2001).

The complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document

to be committed, all the elements of the two crimes of estafa and
falsification of public document must exist.( Gonzaludo v. People, G.R.
No. 150910, February 6, 2006, 481 SCRA 569, 577)

To secure a conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), the following requisites must concur:

(1) The accused made false pretenses or fraudulent

representations as to his power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions;

(2) The false pretenses or fraudulent representations were made

prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud;

(3) The false pretenses or fraudulent representations constitute

the very cause which induced the offended party to part with his
money or property;

(4) That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.( DANILO
D.ANSALDO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 159381  
March 26, 2010)

The crime of falsification of a public document penalized under Article

172 of the RPC. The following requisites must concur, to wit:

(1) That the offender is a private individual or a public officer or

employee who took advantage of his official position;

(2) That he committed any of the acts of falsification

enumerated in article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (which in
this case involves forging a signature);
 (3) That the falsification was committed in a public or official or
commercial document(Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code, Book II, 17th Edition (2008), p. 232

Falsification of Public Documents May Be a Necessary Means for

Committing Estafa Even Under Article 315 (3[a])

The elements of the offense of estafa punished under Article 315 (3[a]) of
the Revised Penal Code are as follows:

(1) the offender induced the offended party to sign a document;

(2) deceit was employed to make the offended party sign the
document;

(3) the offended party personally signed the document and

(4) prejudice is caused to the offended party.

While in estafa under Article 315(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the law does
not require that the document be falsified for the consummation thereof, it
does not mean that the falsification of the document cannot be considered
as a necessary means to commit the estafa under that provision.

The phrase "necessary means" does not connote indispensable means for if
it did, then the offense as a "necessary means" to commit another would be
an indispensable element of the latter and would be an ingredient thereof.
alaw In People v. Salvilla, alaw the phrase "necessary means" merely
signifies that one crime is committed to facilitate and insure the commission
of the other. law In this case, the crime of falsification of public document,
the SPA, was such a "necessary means" as it was resorted to by Sato to
facilitate and carry out more effectively his evil design to swindle his mother-
in-law. In particular, he used the SPA to sell the Tagaytay properties of
Manolita to unsuspecting third persons.

When the offender commits in a public document any of the acts of

falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code as a
necessary means to commit another crime, like estafa, theft or
malversation, the two crimes form a complex crime under Article 48 of the
same Code. The falsification of a public, official or commercial document
may be a means of committing estafa because, before the falsified document
is actually utilized to defraud another, the crime of falsification has already
been consummated, damage or intent to cause damage not being an
element of the crime of falsification of a public, official or commercial
document. In other words, the crime of falsification was committed prior to
the consummation of the crime of estafa. Actually utilizing the falsified
public, official or commercial document to defraud another is estafa. The
damage to another is caused by the commission of estafa, not by the
falsification of the document. (Reyes, supra note 20 at p. 226)

Applying the above principles to this case, the allegations in the Information
show that the falsification of public document was consummated when Sato
presented a ready-made SPA to Manolita who signed the same as a
statement of her intention in connection with her taxes. While the
falsification was consummated upon the execution of the SPA, the
consummation of the estafa occurred only when Sato later utilized the SPA.
He did so particularly when he had the properties sold and thereafter
pocketed the proceeds of the sale. Damage or prejudice to Manolita was
caused not by the falsification of the SPA (as no damage was yet caused to
the property rights of Manolita at the time she was made to sign the
document) but by the subsequent use of the said document. That is why the
falsification of the public document was used to facilitate and ensure (that is,
as a necessary means for) the commission of the estafa.

The situation would have been different if Sato, using the same inducement,
had made Manolita sign a deed of sale of the properties either in his favor or
in favor of third parties. In that case, the damage would have been caused
by, and at exactly the same time as, the execution of the document, not
prior thereto. Therefore, the crime committed would only have been the
simple crime of estafa. On the other hand, absent any inducement (such as
if Manolita herself had been the one who asked that a document pertaining
to her taxes be prepared for her signature, but what was presented to her
for her signature was an SPA), the crime would have only been the simple
crime of falsification( G.R. No. 181409 : February 11, 2010 )

Estafa through falsification; presumption of authorship.

Metrobank urges the application of the presumption of authorship against Tobias

based on his having offered the duplicate copy of the spurious title to secure the
loan, and posits that there is no requirement that the presumption shall apply
only when there is absence of a valid explanation from the person found to have
possessed, used and benefited from the forged document. Metrobank’s theory
was not sustained here. First, a presumption affects the burden of proof that is
normally lodged in the State. The effect is to create the need of presenting
evidence to overcome the prima facie case that shall prevail in the absence of
proof to the contrary. As such, a presumption of law is material during the actual
trial of the criminal case where in the establishment thereof the party against
whom the inference is made should adduce evidence to rebut the presumption
and demolish the prima facie case. This is not so in a preliminary investigation,
where the investigating prosecutor only determines the existence of a prima facie
case that warrants the prosecution of a criminal case in court. Second, the
presumption of authorship, being disputable, may be accepted and acted upon
where no evidence upholds the contention for which it stands. It is not correct to
say, consequently, that the investigating prosecutor will try to determine the
existence of the presumption during preliminary investigation, and then to
disregard the evidence offered by the respondent. Moreover, the presumption
that whoever possesses or uses a spurious document is its forger applies only in
the absence of a satisfactory explanation.  Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.
(Metrobank), represented by Rosella A. Santiago v. Antonio O. Tobias III, G.R.
No. 177780, January 25, 2012

For a successful prosecution of the crime of swindling under Article 316,

paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, the following essential elements of this
crime must be established: (1).that the thing be immovable, such as a parcel of
land or a building; (2) that the offender who is not the owner of said property
should represent that he; is the owner thereof; (3) that the offender should have
executed an act of ownership, e.g., selling, leasing, encumbering, or mortgaging
the property; and (4) that the act be made to the prejudice of the owner or a
third person. ( Estrellado-Mainar vs People, G.R. No. 184320, July 29, 2015.)