William is the son-in-law of Mercedes who owns several pieces of real property. In 1994, William's wife, Anita, died. In 1996, William caused the preparation of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) giving him the authority to sell two (2) parcels of land registered in the name of Mercedes. The signature of Mercedes in the SPA was forged and, through this forged SPA and without the consent and knowledge of Mercedes, William succeeded in selling the two (2) parcels for Php 2,000,000. He pocketed the proceeds of the sale.

Mercedes eventually discovered William's misdeeds and filed a criminal complaint. William was subsequently charged with estafa through falsification of public document.

Was the criminal charge proper?

Yes, the criminal charge is proper. There exists a complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document. In this case, the falsification of the SPA was such a necessary means as it was resorted to by William to facilitate and carry out his evil design to swindle Mercedes. He as well used the SPA to sell the two parcels of land to a third person. The falsification was consummated upon the execution of the SPA, and the consummation of estafa occurred when William later utilized the SPA.

Therefore, the charge is proper because falsification of the public document was used to facilitate and ensure the commission of the estafa.

2) Arlene is engaged in the buy and sell of used garments, more popularly known as"ukay-ukay." Among the items found by the police in a raid of her store in Baguio City were brand-new Louie Feraud blazers.

Arlene was charged with "fencing." Will the charge prosper? Why or why not?

Yes, the charge of fencing will prosper. The raid conducted by the police in the store of Arlene presupposes the presumption of a violation to secure the clearance/permit to sell/used second hand articles. Thus, any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit required by

Section 6 of P.D. 1612 shall upon conviction be punished as a fence. The brand-new Louie Feraud blazer which is offered for sale without prior compliance to the requirement of securing clearance and permit shall be held in restraint until satisfactory evidence or legitimacy of acquisition has been established.

Therefore, the charge of fencing will prosper on the ground of failure to secure the necessary permits in the operation of buy and sell of ukay-ukay.

3.) A asked financial support from her showbiz friend B who accommodated her by issuing in her favor a postdated check in the sum of P90,000.00. Both of them knew that the check would not be honored because Bs account had just been closed. The two then approached trader C whom they asked to change the check with cash, even agreeing that the exchange be discounted at P85,000.00 with the assurance that the check shall be funded upon maturity. Upon Cs presentment of the check for payment on due date, it was dishonored because the account had already been closed.

What action/s may C commence against A and B to hold them to account for the loss of her P85,000.00? Explain.

C may file a complaint for Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check and a complaint for violation of BP 22.

A and B can be charged for Estafa because they both issued a check knowing it to be without sufficient funds. The issuance of the bounced check here was with fraudulent intent that causes damage to C. Hence, deceit and damage are present.

A and B can also be charged for Violation of BP 22, apart from the estafa case, because BP cases makes the mere act of issuing a worthless check a special offense punishable thereunder.