Scribd
Upload
170 views1 page

G.R. No. 181409

Mediatrix Carungcong y Gonzales claimed that (1) Sato induced the blind Manolita Gonzales to sign a document believing it was about taxes, but it was actually a special power of attorney for Sato's daughter to sell Manolita's properties, (2) Sato's daughter then sold the properties but did not share the proceeds with Manolita, and (3) Sato is charged with the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents for deceiving Manolita into signing over power of attorney. The court ruled that the elements of both estafa and falsification must be present to convict for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents. The petition was granted

Uploaded by

Christian Della Delacruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
170 views1 page

G.R. No. 181409

Mediatrix Carungcong y Gonzales claimed that (1) Sato induced the blind Manolita Gonzales to sign a document believing it was about taxes, but it was actually a special power of attorney for Sato's daughter to sell Manolita's properties, (2) Sato's daughter then sold the properties but did not share the proceeds with Manolita, and (3) Sato is charged with the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents for deceiving Manolita into signing over power of attorney. The court ruled that the elements of both estafa and falsification must be present to convict for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents. The petition was granted

Uploaded by

Christian Della Delacruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

181409, February 11, 2010


INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE CARUNGCONG V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Facts:
MEDIATRIX CARUNGCONG Y GONZALES, state that:

(a) Sato presented a document to Manolita (who was already blind at that time) and induced
her to sign and thumbmark the same;

(b) he made Manolita believe that the said document was in connection with her taxes when it
was in fact a special power of attorney (SPA) authorizing his minor daughter Wendy to sell,
assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of Manolita’s properties in Tagaytay City;

(c) relying on Sato’s inducement and representation, Manolita signed and thumbmarked the SPA
in favor of Wendy Mitsuko Sato, daughter of Sato;

(d) using the document, he sold the properties to third parties but he neither delivered the
proceeds to Manolita nor accounted for the same and

(d) despite repeated demands, he failed and refused to deliver the proceeds, to the damage and
prejudice of the estate of Manolita.

A reading of the facts alleged in the Information reveals that Sato is being charged not with simple
estafa but with the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents. In particular, the
Information states that Sato, by means of deceit, intentionally defrauded Manolita.

Issue: Whether or not does beneficial application of Article 332 cover the complex crime of estafa thru
falsification.

Ruling: Yes, the concurrence of all the elements of the two crimes of estafa and falsification of public
document is required for a proper conviction for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of
public document.
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.
Wherefore, the petition granted and the Court of Appeals reversedthe complex crime of estafa through
falsification of public documents

You might also like