7/28/2019 Ilagan vs CA
1/2
Ilagan vs CARegaladoNATURE: appealFacts:1st case
July, 1990 - December, 1991 - Geruncio H. Ilagan, Claro Pion and
RosendoPion as the President, Finance Manager and SalesDirector,
respectively, ofthe Apple Realty and Development Corporation
represented themselves thatthey are authorized to collect/receive
and issue receipts of payments frombuyers Erlinda Sayasa, Rogelio
Damasco, Gina G. Teston, FilomenaLanoz,Natividad Diaz, Florida
Gargoles and Marcelita Ranar, accused knowingfully well that they
are not authorized to do so, received an amount ofP353,500.2nd
case
June to Nov. 23, 1991 - Apple Realty and Development
Corporation,defrauded and deceived the HOMETRUST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,represented by its MANAGER, SALLY S. GO by lying that
they were authorized
to sell lots and/or houses and lots to prospective buyers from
Apple Realtyknowing fully well that they cannot receive any form of
payment from buyers,induced and convinced one MARCELITA RANARA to
buy and purchase lotsand/or house and lots and receive payments and
issue receipts, as in factinthe total amount of P24,000.00
6 other cases had the same issue just with different people and
dates.
July 21, 1992 - eight informations were filed and docketed as
Criminal Casescharging petitioners Geruncio H. Ilagan, Claro
Pionand Rosendo Pion as co-conspirators in the crime of estafa
Issue:WON accused should be charged with only one offense of
estafasince allcases are against the Hometrust Development
Corporation
Held:NO. they should be charged for each offense separately
since they werecommitted through different modes of estafa
Ratio:The crime of estafa committed against Hometrust
Development Corporationand those committed against the lot buyers
are separate felonies. They weredictated bydifferent criminal
intents, committed under different modes of commissionprovided by
the law on estafa, perpetrated by different acts, consummatedon
different occasions, and caused injury to different parties.In the
first case, the Crime of Estafa against Hometrust
DevelopmentCorporation was committed through unfaithfulness or
abuse of confidence, asprovided in Paragraph 1(b) of Article
315,Revised Penal Code
The operative act in the perpetration was the failure to turn
over or deliverto HOMETRUST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION the amounts
collected by
7/28/2019 Ilagan vs CA
2/2
Ilagan, despite their duty to do so. In the second case, the
offense ofswindling was committed bydeceit or false pretenses
employed prior to orsimultaneously with the commission of the
fraud, more specifically asprovided inParagraph 2(a) of Article 135
of the Code, that is, by the accused falselypretending to possess
the power to collect the payments due from said
buyers, despite the peculiar but specific prohibition imposed by
their saidprincipal. The felony was perpetrated through
thedeceitful misrepresentations which made the unauthorized
collectionspossible
The offense was consummated upon receipt by Ilagan and co. of
the amountsin the different occasions and places where the payments
were made by thelot buyers who were deprived of both their money
and property rights. Thereare then two modes to commit estafa (1)
abuse of confidence and damagefor the corporation (2) elements of
deceit and damage for the lot buyers.In estafa through abuse of
confidence prior demand should be made by theoffended party on the
accused tocomply with the obligation before thelatter may be
charged criminally, but there is no such requirement where
the estafa was committed through deceit. Thus, where an agent
deliberatelymisrepresented to the land owner the real position of
the prospective buyerof the land in order toinduce said owner to
agree to a lower price and,thereafter, the agent sold the land for
the higher amount which was actuallyagreed upon by him and the
buyer, and he then clandestinelymisappropriated the excess, the
crime of estafa was committed under bothmodes and he could be
charged under either.
