29.

X draws a check upon request of Y, the payee, who told X that

he would merely show the check to his creditor to gain more time to

pay his account. The check bounced upon presentation by the

creditor. Under the circumstances, who can be prosecuted for estafa

based on the dishonored check?

A. Y as the one who negotiated the check contrary to the

agreement

B. X as the drawer of the check

C. Both X and Y based on conspiracy

D. None

58. Which of the following circumstances of dishonor of a check

can be a basis for prosecution under the bouncing checks law?

A. The check was returned unpaid with stamp “stop payment,”

although the drawer’s deposit was sufficient.

B. The check, drawn and issued in the Philippines, was

dishonored by the drawee bank in a foreign country.

C. The check was presented to the bank for payment 6 months

after the date of issue.

D. The drawer of the dishonored check paid its value within 5 days

from notice of dishonor

XI. Anthony drew a promissory note and asked his terminally-ill

and dying business partner Ben to sign it. The promissory note bound
Ben to pay Anthony One Million Pesos (P1,000,000) plus 12%

interest, on or before June 30, 2011.

If Ben died before the promissory note's due date and Anthony

still collected P1,000,000 with interest from Ben's estate, what

crime/s did Anthony commit? (1%)

(A) Falsification of a public document.

(B) Falsification of a private document and estafa.

(C) Estafa.

(D) Estafa thru falsification of a private document.

(E) None of the above.

36. Removing, concealing or destroying documents to defraud

another constitutes the crime of estafa if committed by

A. any public officer.

B. a public officer officially entrusted with the document.

C. private individuals who executed the same.

D. private individuals.

1. The wife of AAA predeceased his mother-in-law. AAA was accused

of defrauding his mother-in-law under a criminal information for

estafa, but the actual recital of facts of the offense charged therein, if

proven, would constitute not only the crime of estafa, but also

falsification of public document as a necessary means for committing

Which statement is most accurate?

a) The relationship by affinity created between AAA and the blood

relatives of his wife is dissolved by the death of his wife and the

absolutory cause of relationship by affinity is therefore no longer

available to AAA.

b) The death of spouse does not severe the relationship by affinity

which is an absolutory cause available to AAA for estafa through

falsification of public document.

c) If AAA commits in a public document the act of falsification as a

necessary means to commit estafa, the relationship by affinity still

subsists as an absolutory cause for estafa which should be

considered separately from the liability for falsification of public

document because there is no specific penalty prescribed for the

complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document.

d) Considering that under the given situation, the two (2) crimes of

estafa and falsification of public document are not separate crimes

but component crimes of the single complex crime of estafa and

falsification of public document, the absolutory cause of relationship

by affinity is not available to AAA.

8. AA misrepresented to the complainant that he had the power,

influence, authority and business to obtain overseas employment

upon payment of placement fee. AA duly collected the placement fee

Employment Administration, AA did not possess any authority or

license for overseas employment. Is it proper to file two (2) separate

Informations for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and for

estafa by means of deceit?

a) No. The filing of two (2) separate Informations for illegal

recruitment under the Labor Code and for estafa by means of deceit

for the same act is violative of the principle against double jeopardy.

b) No. One Information for a complex crime of illegal recruitment with

estafa by means of deceit should be filed, instead of two (2) separate

Informations.

c) No. A person convicted of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code

may not, for the same act, be separately convicted of estafa by

means of deceit.

d) Yes. A person convicted of illegal recruitment under the Labor

Code may, for the same act, be separately convicted of estafa by

means of deceit.

17. What crime is committed by one who defrauds another by taking

undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in a blank

check and by writing the payee and amount of the check to the

prejudice of the offended party?

a) estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence;

b) estafa by false pretense;

d) estafa by other deceits.

22. Who among the following is liable for estafa?

a) The seller of a laptop computer who failed to inform the buyer that

the laptop had a defect. (* Estafa under Art. 318, Other Deceits, RPC –

Guinhawa vs. People, GR 162822, August 25, 2005)

b) The person who ran away with a cell phone which was handed to

him upon his pretense that he had to make an emergency call.

c) The person who assured he will pay interest on the amount but

failed to do so as promised.

d) The son who induced his father to buy from him a land which the

son is no longer the owner.

50. What crime is committed by one who, having received money,

goods or any other personal property in trust or on commission, or for

administration, defrauds the offended party by denying receipt of

such money, goods or other property?

a) He commits violation of the Trust Receipt Law.

b) He commits estafa through fraudulent means.

c) He commits estafa by false pretenses.

d) He commits estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence.

salary and entitlement to a yearly vacation. WW paid to RR the

processing fee for passport and visa, but no receipt was issued for

the payment. WW was made to use the alien certificate of registration

of another person with a Chinese name and instructed on how to use

the Chinese name. The application of WW was rejected by the

Taiwanese authorities. Cases were filed against RR for illegal

recruitment and estafa. The case of illegal recruitment was

dismissed. Is RR liable for estafa?

a) RR is liable for estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence.

b) RR is liable for estafa by means of false pretenses.

c) RR is not liable for estafa because WW participated in the illegal

travel documents.

d) RR can no longer be held liable for estafa because with the

dismissal of the case against him for illegal recruitment, double

jeopardy has already set in.

65. Which of the following acts does not constitute estafa or other

forms of swindling?

a) When a person mortgages a real property by pretending to be the

owner thereof.

b) When a person disposes of the real property knowing it to be

c) When a person wrongfully takes real property from its lawful

possessor to the prejudice of the latter.

d) When a person mortgages real property while being a surety given

in a civil action without express authority from the court.

XVI. On June 1, 2011, Efren bought a used top-of-the-line Mercedes

Benz for P7.5 Million from Switik Trading. On the same day, he paid

P2,500,000 in cash and issued Switik Trading a check for P5,000,000

dated July 31, 2011. He then brought the car to a friend's house and

hid it in an underground garage. The check Efren issued was

dishonored for insufficiency of funds when presented for payment on

due date. Efren was asked to honor and pay the check or to return

the car, but he refused.

What crime/s did Efren commit? (1%)

(A) Carnapping.

(B Estafa and carnapping.

(C) A violation of BP Blg. 22.

(D) Estafa and a violation of BP Blg. 22.

(E) None of the above.

29. X draws a check upon request of Y, the payee, who told X that

he would merely show the check to his creditor to gain more time to

pay his account. The check bounced upon presentation by the

based on the dishonored check?

A. Y as the one who negotiated the check contrary to the

agreement

B. X as the drawer of the check

C. Both X and Y based on conspiracy

D. None

Frank borrowed Pl,000,000 from his brother Eric. To pay the

loan, Frank issued a post-dated check to be presented for payment a

month after the transaction. Two days before maturity, Frank called

Eric telling him he had insufficient funds and requested that the

deposit of the check be deferred. Nevertheless, Eric deposited the

check and it was dishonored. When Frank failed to pay despite

demand, Eric filed a complaint against him for violation of Batas

Pambansa Big. 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law).

Was the charge brought against Frank correct? (7%)

ANSWER:

Yes, the charge is correct. Violation of Batas Pambansa Big.

22, The Bouncing Checks Law, is malum prohibitum which is

committed by mere issuance of a check without sufficient funds.

Good faith is not a defense. As long as the check was issued on

terms and conditions relating to the issuance are irrelevant to the

prosecution of the offender. Hence, the request of Frank to defer the

deposit of the check as it has insufficient funds will not militate

against the prosecution for violation of BP 22.

Mr. Benjie is the owner of a hardware store specializing in the

sale of plumbing materials. On February 1, 2014, Mr. Ed, a friend and

regular customer of Mr. Benjie, visited the hardware store and

purchased several plumbing materials in the total amount of P5

million. Mr. Benjie readily accepted Mr. Ed’s payment of three (3)

postdated checks in the amount of P1 million Pesos each in view of

the assurance of Mr. Ed that the checks will be honored upon

presentment for payment. Mr. Benjie, as a consequence, immediately

delivered the materials to the house of Mr. Ed. The following day, Mr.

Ed went back to Mr. Benjie to tender another two (2) postdated

checks in the amount of P1 million each to complete the payment,

with the same assurance that the checks will be honored upon

presentment for payment. When the checks were presented for

payment, all were dishonored for insufficiency of funds and

corresponding notices of dishonour were sent and received by Mr.

to make good the checks. Thereafter, Mr. Benjie filed before the

public prosecutor’s office a complaint against Mr. Ed, although no

demand letter was earlier sent to Mr. Ed.

During the preliminary investigation, Mr. Benjie accepted

several amounts from Mr. Ed as partial payments. The wife of Mr.

Benjie protested and insisted that the complaint should continue

despite the partial payments. On the other hand, Mr. Ed counters that

no demand letter was earlier sent to him, that the obligation is merely

civil in character and that novation took place when Mr. Benjie

accepted the partial payments.

Discuss the criminal liability, if any, of Mr. Ed. (6%)

ANSWER:

Mr. Ed is liable of one count of Estafa under Article 315(2)(d)

for the issuance of the first 3 checks because he issued them

simultaneous with the transaction in order to defraud another.

However, the 2 other checks had been issued in payment of a preexisting obligation, hence, estafa is not
committed as the issuance of

said checks was not the efficient cause of defraudation.

Mr. Ed is also liable of 5 counts of violation of BP 22, The

Bouncing Checks Law, for the issuance of the 5 checks which were

dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. The gravamen of BP 22 is the

issuance of a worthless or bum check; deceit/fraud is not an element.

Mr. Ed’s defense of partial payments constituting novation and

absence of demand letter will not free him from the criminal liability

already incurred. The partial payments would only affect his civil
liability while his claim of absence of demand letter is negated by the

receipt of notice of dishonour.