Estafa - G.R. No. 185277

See  -  G.R. No. 185277





"x x x.

          Appellant professes lack of criminal intent to escape liability for estafa.  He maintains that, like the private complainants, he is also an applicant trying his luck at finding work overseas; that he would usually help out in office work on occasions that he would visit the agency as an applicant which explains why complainants could have indeed seen and conversed with him about their applications.

          These implausible arguments fail to persuade us.

          As with the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, this Court is likewise convinced that the prosecution was able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, appellant’s guilt for estafa under Article 315 (2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, which provides:

Article 315. Swindling (estafa). x x x

                        x x x x

1.                  By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:

(a)By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.

          Under the above-quoted provision, there are three (3) ways of committing estafa:  (1) by using a fictitious name; (2) by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; and (3) by means of other similar deceits.[56]  To convict for this type of crime, it is essential that the false statement or fraudulent representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induces the complainant to part with the thing of value.[57]

          In the case before us, appellant and Martir led the private complainants to believe that they possessed the power, qualifications and means to provide work in Korea.  During the trial of these cases, it was clearly shown that, together with Martir, appellant discussed with private complainants the fact of their being deployed abroad for a job if they pay the processing fee, and that he actually received payments from private complainants.  Thus, it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that the three private complainants were deceived into believing that there were jobs waiting for them in a factory in Korea when in fact there were none.  Because of the assurances of appellant, each of the private complainants parted with their money and suffered damages as a result of their being unable to leave for Korea.  The elements ofestafa ─ deceit and damage ─ are thus indisputably present, making the conviction for estafa appropriate.

 x x x."