Scribd
Upload
379 views1 page

Frustrated Estafa Case: U.S. vs. Dominguez

The accused, a salesman for a bookstore, sold five books worth 7.50 pesos but did not immediately deliver the money to the cashier. He provided various reasons for retaining the funds. The trial court found him guilty of estafa. The Supreme Court affirmed he was guilty of frustrated estafa, as he committed all the acts to complete the crime but it was not completed due to independent causes, like the timely discovery of his actions before damage occurred, which is an essential element of the crime. The penalty was modified from the trial court's decision.

Uploaded by

TaJheng Barde
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
379 views1 page

Frustrated Estafa Case: U.S. vs. Dominguez

The accused, a salesman for a bookstore, sold five books worth 7.50 pesos but did not immediately deliver the money to the cashier. He provided various reasons for retaining the funds. The trial court found him guilty of estafa. The Supreme Court affirmed he was guilty of frustrated estafa, as he committed all the acts to complete the crime but it was not completed due to independent causes, like the timely discovery of his actions before damage occurred, which is an essential element of the crime. The penalty was modified from the trial court's decision.

Uploaded by

TaJheng Barde
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

TOPIC: ESTAFA

(38-ALL) U.S. VS. Dominguez


G.R. No. L-17021, February 23, 1921

FACTS:
The accused, as salesman of the bookstore "Philippine Education Co., Inc." sold on the morning of January 19, 1920, five
copies of Sams' "Practical Business Letters," of the value of seven pesos and fifty centavos (pesos 7.50), which the
accused should have immediately delivered to the cashier but which he did not deliver, until after it was discovered that
he had sold the books and received their value.
The accused alleges different reasons as to why he did not deliver the money immediately after the sale, but there can
be no doubt as to the injury which the accused would have caused to the interests of the company in retaining for
himself the proceeds of the sale in question.
Trial the court found the accused guilty of the crime of estafa, to which he appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of frustrated estafa.

HELD:
Yes, the accused is guilty of frustrated estafa.
Established by the supreme court of Spain in previous decisions to the case at bar, it was held that that the appellant is
guilty of the frustrated offense of estafa of 37 ½ pesetas, inasmuch as he performed all the acts of execution which
should produce the crime as a consequence, but which, by reason of causes independent of his will, did not produce it,
no appreciable damage having been caused to the offended party, such damage being one of the essential elements of
the crime, due to the timely discovery of the acts prosecuted.
Therefore, the SC modified the trial court’s decision and charged the accused with frustrated estafa with modifications
on the penalties.

You might also like