Estafa by fraudulent means, A315(3) Revised Penal Code

1. Article 315(3), Estafa through fraudulent means

2. Modes of committing A315(3), RPC

A315(3) estafa through fraudulent means may be committed:

1) Article 315(3)(a): By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document.

2) Article 315(3)(b): By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game.

c) Article 315(3)(c): By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in part, any court record, office files, document or any other papers.

a. Article 315(3)(a): Deceitfully inducing another to sign a document

Article 315(3)(a): By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document.

The elements of estafa through deceitfully inducing another to sign a document under Article 315(3)(a):

1) That another person’s signature is required on a document; and

2) That the offender induced the other person, by means of deceit, to sign said document. (REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 315(3)(a))

1) Element 1: Signature required on a document

For the first element, another person’s signature is required on a document.

NB: Not all documents require a signature. Further, some signatures are optional on certain documents – e.g., minutes of a meeting.

2) Element 2: Induced to sign by deceit

For the second element the offender induced the other person to sign said document by means of deceit, such as by making misrepresentations or false statements. This is the gravamen of the offense.

b. Article 315(3)(b): Fraudulent gambling

Article 315(3)(b): By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game.

The elements of estafa through fraudulent gambling under Article 315(3)(b):

1) That the offender engages in gambling; and

2) That the offender resorted to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game. (REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 315(3)(b))

1) Element 1: Gambling

For the first element, the offender engages in hambling.

NB: Since the provision does not specify as to what kind of gambling, it thus covers all forms of gambling and whether they are legal (e.g., poker, casino, etc.) or illegal (e.g., jueting, cara y cruz, etc.)

2) Element 2: Fraudulent practice to win gambling

For the second element, the offender resorted to some fraudulent practice to ensure success in a gambling game.

NB: As the provision did not specify, the fraudulent practice includes any or all forms of deceit, whether with or without the use of techniques, tools, or technology.

c. Article 315(3)(c): Removal, concealment, destruction of court record, office files, document or any other papers

The elements of estafa through removal, concealment, destroying of papers under Article 315(3) (c):

1) That there is a court record, office files, document or any other papers; and

2) That the offender removes, conceals or destroys, in whole or in part, any of those papers. (REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 315(3)(a))

1) Element 1: Court record, office files, document or any other papers

For the first element, there is a court record, office files, document or any other papers.

[N]either Article 315, paragraph 3 (c) of the RPC nor Article 535, paragraph 9 of the old penal code requires that the documents or papers are evidence of indebtedness. (Capulong v. People, G.R. No. 199907, February 27, 2017, Per Peralta, J.)

“Any other papers”

NB: The phrase “any other papers” is broad enough to cover any type or form of document, whether they be of an official character, commercial in nature, or even personal.

Capulong v. People, G.R. No. 199907, February 27, 2017, Per Peralta, J.:

• In this case, [the Accused] contends that there is no competent proof that she actually removed, concealed or destroyed any of the papers contemplated in Article 315, paragraph 3 (c) of the RPC. Allegedly, pursuant to Tan Jenjua, Kilayko, and Dizon, the document removed, concealed or destroyed must contain evidence of indebtedness so as to cause prejudice, and the OR-CR are not of this nature.

• Contrary to [the Accused]’s supposition, neither Article 315, paragraph 3 (c) of the RPC nor Article 535, paragraph 9 of the old penal code requires that the documents or papers are evidence of indebtedness. Notably, while the old provision broadly covered “any process, record, document, or any other paper of any character whatsoever,” the new provision refers to “documents or any other papers.” Indeed, there is no limitation that the penal provision applies only to documents or papers that are evidence of indebtedness.

• Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Article 315, paragraph 3 (c) of the RPC merely penalizes the removal, concealment or destruction of documents or papers that are evidence of indebtedness, still [the Accused] cannot be acquitted. In Our mind, the promissory note, the chattel mortgage, and the checks that she executed are not the only proof of her debt to De Guzman. In a chattel mortgage of a vehicle, the OR-CR should be considered as evidence of indebtedness because they are part and parcel of the entire mortgage documents, without which the mortgage’s right to foreclose cannot be effectively enforced.

• In case of default in payment, the mortgaged property has to be sold at public auction so that its proceeds would satisfy, among others, the payment of the obligation secured by the mortgage. Prior to the foreclosure, however, the encumbrance must be annotated in the Chattel Mortgage Registry of the Register of Deeds and the LTO, where the OR-CR must be presented. The LTO requires, among others, not just the original copy of the CR and the latest OR of the payment of motor vehicle user’s charge and other fees but even the actual physical inspection of the motor vehicle by the District Office accepting the annotation. As a businesswoman, [the Accused] knows or is expected to know these procedures. In fact, the Spouses Capulong initially surrendered the OR-CR of the cargo truck precisely to give effect to the chattel mortgage they executed in favour of De Guzman.

• Based on records, it cannot be doubted that the subject OR-CR were never returned by [the Accused]. Her testimony, aside from not having been subject to cross-examination, is self-serving and not corroborated by testimonial or documentary evidence. As correctly opined by the courts below, if it is true that the OR-CR were returned, [the Accused] should have taken possession of the document evidencing her receipt of the OR-CR, or caused its cancellation, or made an entry therein of the date of return of the subject documents. Further, it is highly improbable that De Guzman would undergo the expense, trouble, and inconvenience of prosecuting this case, which has dragged on for more than 20 years already, if her accusation is just a made-up story.

• With the concealment of the OR-CR, [the Accused]’s act certainly caused a positive injury to De Guzman. The absence of the OR-CR practically rendered useless the chattel mortgage. Since the mortgage could not be properly registered with the LTO, the right to foreclose the truck could not be exercised. [The Accused] made it difficult for De Guzman to collect the unpaid debt as the latter would be forced to file a collection suit instead of conveniently going through the foreclosure proceedings. It is of judicial notice that, as opposed to a civil case for sum of money, a foreclosure of mortgage involves much less time, effort and resources.

2) Element 2: Removal, concealment, or destruction

For the second element, the offender removes, conceals or destroys, in whole or in part, any of the mentioned papers in the first element. This is the gravamen of the offense.

To remove means to change the location, position, station; to move or take away; to get rid of. (Merriam Webster Online Dictionary)

To conceal means to hide. (Merriam Webster Online Dictionary)

To destroy means to ruin or cause destruction. (Merriam Webster Online Dictionary)