Considering the far-reaching consequences of a criminal conspiracy, the same degree of proof necessary in establishing the crime is required to support the attendance thereof, i.e., it must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself.
Below is a sample counter-affidavit prepared by Atty. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years.
involving Estafa undergoing preliminary investigation before an investigating prosecutor in Metro Manila. Only the jurisprudential part thereof is retained for legal research purposes of the visitors of this law blog.1st.
(c) By pretending to have bribed any Government employee, without prejudice to the action for calumny which the offended party may deem proper to bring against the offender.
In this case, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty.
Absent proof of conspiracy, appellant may only be held accountable for acts that are imputable to him Conspiracy must be proved as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself for it is a facile device by which an accused may be ensnared and kept within the penal fold.
In case of reasonable doubt as to its existence, the balance tips in favor of the milder form of criminal liability as what is at stake is the accused’s liberty. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
In the present case, there is want of evidence to show the concerted acts of appellant, Conrada and Felicita (albeit already discharged) in pursuing a common design — to rob Uy.
The prosecution in fact appears to have abandoned the theory of conspiracy altogether, no evidence thereof having been presented.
Respondents x x x and x x x simply transferred the amount to the name of the new Cooperative IN GOOD FAITH in accord with the formal manifestation, mandate, order, wish, and desire of the members of the association who had formed a new Cooperative and who had mandated the association to transfer its funds, assets, concessions, and contracts association to the new Under paragraph 2 (d) of Article 315 of the RPC, as amended by RA 4885, the elements of estafa are: (1) a check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time it is issued; (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; (3) damage to the payee thereof.
The prima facie presumption of deceit was successfully rebutted by appellant’s evidence of good faith, a defense in estafa by postdating a check.
Good faith may be demonstrated, for instance, by a debtor’s offer to arrange a payment scheme with his creditor. It adheres to the view that criminal intent in embezzlement is not based on technical mistakes as to the legal effect of a transaction honestly entered into, and there can be no embezzlement if the mind of the person doing the act is innocent or if there is no wrongful affirmed the doctrine that an erroneous interpretation of the meaning of the provisions of an ordinance by a city mayor does not amount to bad faith that would entitle an aggrieved party to damages against that official. Pascual which held that public officials may not be liable for damages in the discharge of their official functions absent any bad faith. Veridiano II expanded the concept by declaring that under the law on public officers, acts done in the performance of official duty are protected by the presumption of good faith.