 Article 315 (b)

“Estafa through unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence.”

Estafa through unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence is done by:
(a) Altering quality, quantity and substance of subject matter of contract;
(b) Misappropriating or converting goods/property of another;
(c) Taking advantage of a signature in blank
ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA WITH ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE UNDER SUBDIVISION
NO.1 PAR. (B) – misappropriation/conversion/denial that thing was received
1. That money, goods, or other personal property 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, the same.
2. That there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the
offender, or dental on his part of such receipt.
3. that such misappropriation or conversion or dental is to the prejudice of another
and
4. That there is a demand made by the offended party to the offender.
Money, goods or personal property must be received by the offender under certain kinds
of transaction transferring juridical possession to him.
Money, goods, or personal property must be received by the offender in trust or on
commission, or for administration, or under any obligation involving duty to make delivery
of the same. (Reyes Book)

Galvez v Court of Appeals 42 SCRA 278, G.R. No. L-22760. November 29, 1971
- Check is included in the word “money”
- The distinction of a check and the conversion of cash in relation to the formal
allegation in the information of conversion of a specific money is not material is
estafa.
- Reasons:
1. A check, after all, while not regarded as legal tender, is normally accepted, under
commercial usage, as a substitute for cash. Further the credit represented by it in
stated monetary value is property capable of appropriation.
2. it is erroneous for the accused to assume that he was in receipt of complainant’s
money only from the time when and at the place where he cashed the check.
Applying the principles of civil law on payments done thru the use of bills of
exchange, the delivery to the accused of the check on an earlier date, had the
effect, when the same was subsequently cashed, of transferring as of that date
and in that place, the sum covered thereby from the drawer to the payee. This,
 although the change from check to public notes took place at a later date and at
another situs. And
3. the delivery by the complainant of the check and its acceptance by the accused
signified not merely the transfer to the accused of money belonging to the
complainant. It also marked, the creation of a fiduciary relation between the parties.
The existence of such relation either in the form of a trust, commission or
administration, is, of course, an essential element of the crime of estafa by
misappropriation or conversion.

Murao and Huertazuela v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 141485, 30 June 2005,
46 SCRA 366, 379 (as reiterated in TONY TAN a.k.a. TONY Y. CHING vs. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 153460 January 29, 2007)
The words "convert" and "misappropriate" connote an act of using or disposing of
another’s property as if it were one’s own or devoting it to a purpose or use different from
that agreed upon.
Serona v. Court of Appeals, 440 Phil. 508 (2002) as reiterated in TONY TAN a.k.a.
TONY Y. CHING vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 153460 January 29,
2007

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 any right.

Nagrampa v. People of the Philippines, 435 Phil. 441, 455 (2002)

Damage as an element of estafa may consist in (1) the offended party being deprived of
his money or property as a result of the defraudation; (2) disturbance in property right; or
(3) temporary prejudice.

 ESTAFA under par. 2(d) of Art. 315

Elements:
1. Postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at a time
the check was issued;
2. Lack of sufficiency of funds to cover the check; and
3. Damage to the payee
315(2)(d) applies when:
 1. check is drawn to enter into an obligation
2. Obligation is not pre-existing
The check must be genuine. If the check is falsified and is cashed with the bank or
exchanged for cash, the crime is estafa thru falsification of a commercial document.
Accused must be able to obtain something from the offended party by means of the check
he issued and delivered. Thus if A issued a check in favor of B for a debt he has incurred
a month or so ago, the dishonor of the check for insufficiency of funds in the bank does
not constitute estafa.
But if A told B to deliver him P10K and he would issue in favor of B a check in the sum of
11K as it was Sunday and A needed a cash urgently, and B gave his P10,000 having in
mind the profit of P1K when he encashes on Monday and the check bounced when
deposited, A can be held liable for Estafa. In such case, A would not have parted with his
money were it not for the issuance of A’s check. (GN 2014)

People vs Isleta, et al (61 Phil 332), reiterated in Zalgado v CA (178 SCRA 146)
The fact that the accused was not the actual maker of the check is not a defense.
The appellant who only negotiated directly and personally the check drawn by another is
guilty of estafa because he has “guilty knowledge that at the time he negotiated the check,
the drawer has no sufficient funds.”(Garcia v People, GR No. 144785, Sept 11, 2003)

ESTAFA THRU FALSIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT

CARLOS L. TANENGGEE vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 179448 June
26, 2013
- "Forgery is present when any writing is counterfeited by the signing of another’s
name with intent to defraud."( (Ocampo v. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No.
164968, July 3, 2009, 591 SCRA 562, 570). It can be established by comparing
the alleged false signature with the authentic or genuine one. A finding of forgery
does not depend entirely on the testimonies of government handwriting experts
whose opinions do not mandatorily bind the courts. A trial judge is not precluded
but is even authorized by law28 to conduct an independent examination of the
questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its
authenticity.
- Elements of falsification of commercial documents established.
- Falsification of documents under paragraph 1, Article 172 in relation to Article 171
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) refers to falsification by a private individual or a
public officer or employee, who did not take advantage of his official position, of
 public, private or commercial document. The elements of falsification of documents
under paragraph 1, Article 172 of the RPC are: (1) that the offender is a private
individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official
position; (2) that he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article
171 of the RPC; and, (3) that the falsification was committed in a public, official or
commercial document.

ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee; or notary or ecclesiastical minister. – The penalty of prision mayor
and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking
advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:

1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric;

2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so
participate;

3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact
made by them;

4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;

5. Altering true dates;

6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;

7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such
original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original;
or

8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.

- All the above-mentioned elements were established in this case. First, petitioner is
a private individual. Second, the acts of falsification consisted in petitioner’s (1)
counterfeiting or imitating the handwriting or signature of Tan and causing it to
appear that the same is true and genuine in all respects; and (2) causing it to
appear that Tan has participated in an act or proceeding when he did not in fact
so participate. Third, the falsification was committed in promissory notes and
checks which are commercial documents. Commercial documents are, in general,
documents or instruments which are "used by merchants or businessmen to
promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions."( Monteverde v. People, 435 Phil.
906, 921 (2002).). Promissory notes facilitate credit transactions while a check is
a means of payment used in business in lieu of money for convenience in business
transactions. A cashier’s check necessarily facilitates bank transactions for it
allows the person whose name and signature appear thereon to encash the check
and withdraw the amount indicated therein. (Domingo v. People, G.R. No. 186101,
October 12, 2009, 603 SCRA 488, 505-506.)
ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA BY TAKING UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF THE SIGNATURE IN
BLANK: (315)
1. That the paper with the signature of the offended party be in blank.
2. That the offended party should have delivered it to offender.
3. That above the signature of the offended party a document is written by the offender
without authority to do so.
4. That the document so written creates a liability of, or causes damage to, the
offended party or any third person.
Note: If the paper with signature in blank was stolen – Falsification if by making it appear
that he participated in a transaction when in fact he did not so participate.