What is the law on Fraud in the Philippines?
soc.culture.filipino
Philippines.
Specifically, I am interested in learning if fraud has a
prescriptive period, or is governed by the Statute of
Limitations.
If it is governed by this Statute, what is the prescriptive
period? How many years before one is "estopped" from
filing and prospering on a charge of fraud?
In a specific case that I know, someone forged the
signature of another on a fake real estate (land sale).
The incident happened in 1971. But the true owner of the
land discovered of the fraudulent act only recently (March
2000).
Can the true and rightful owner still file a claim?
A side issue is the matter of taxes. The true owner, who
now resides in the USA was sending payments for the taxes
thru his lawyer, who passed away recently (March 2000).
It turned out that payments were remitted to the government
only until 1971. (possibility of collusion between the
lawyer and this fraudulent owner exists--but that is
another matter)
The main question and concern is: has the period for
filing fraud prescribed?
Thanks.
PusongPinoye2
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
soc.culture.filipino
up empty-handed also, that is why I posted. Call
it "mental telepathy", but I was really hoping you would
answer my question. And sure enough you did. I have
printed your posting here and follow up on the referenced
articles on fraud, etc.
BTW, there is another subscriber here who used to sign his
name as Mang Ben or Ben Guadiz. Like you, he is quite
informed about the Constitution and the Philippine
Laws...but he has not posted for a long time. Wonder if
you know how I can contact this gentleman.
Thanks again for the help. I also could not remember the
name of the Pilipino lawyer who is active in the internet,
but you came up with it: Chan Robles. This will help, I
am sure.
Muchas gracias, amigo.
Pusong Pinoye2
Boracay Bill
soc.culture.filipino <pusongpino...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> Basically, I am searching for the law on fraud in the
> Philippines.
>
You should ask someone qualified to practice law in the Philippines,
which I am not. I don't claim any legal expertise, but will try to
provide some info below which might be helpful.
> Specifically, I am interested in learning if fraud has a
> prescriptive period, or is governed by the Statute of
> Limitations.
>
> If it is governed by this Statute, what is the prescriptive
> period? How many years before one is "estopped" from
> filing and prospering on a charge of fraud?
I've looked, and haven't found any info on a Statute of Limitations.
Could be I've missed it, or could be that there is no such thing in
the Philippines.
> In a specific case that I know, someone forged the
> signature of another on a fake real estate (land sale).
> The incident happened in 1971. But the true owner of the
> land discovered of the fraudulent act only recently (March
> 2000).
>
> Can the true and rightful owner still file a claim?
>
> A side issue is the matter of taxes. The true owner, who
> now resides in the USA was sending payments for the taxes
> thru his lawyer, who passed away recently (March 2000).
>
> It turned out that payments were remitted to the government
> only until 1971. (possibility of collusion between the
> lawyer and this fraudulent owner exists--but that is
> another matter)
Hmmmm... Perhaps there is a possibility of having the sale invalidated
and thereby recovering the property from the person who purchased the
property in this seemingly fraudulant transaction.
Hmmmm... It sounds like the perpetrator of the fake land sale
might have violated Article 316, Section 1 of the Penal Code,
and the lawyer who diverted the tax payments might have violated
Article 315, Section 1(b).
You ought to ask a Philippione lawyer about this. Check out
http://abogadomo.com/ and/or http://www.chanrobles.com/
The relevent sections of the penal code read as follows:
BOOK TWO
CRIMES AND PENALTIES
<snip>
Title Ten
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
<snip>
Chapter Six
SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another
by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
1st. 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. In such cases, and in
connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed under
the provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision
mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods, if the amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does
not exceed 12,000 pesos;
3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period if such amount is over 200 pesos
but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and
4th. By arresto mayor in its maximum period, if such amount does
not exceed 200 pesos, provided that in the four cases mentioned,
the fraud be committed by any of the following means:
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
(a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality or anything of
value which the offender shall deliver by virtue of an obligation
to do so, even though such obligation be based on an immoral or
illegal consideration.
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of
another, money, goods, or any other personal property received
by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration,
or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery
of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally
or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received
such money, goods, or other property.
(c) By taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party
in blank, and by writing any document above such signature in blank,
to the prejudice of the offended party or of any third person.
2. 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.
(b) By altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything
pertaining to his art or business.
(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.
(d) [By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an
obligation when the offender therein were not sufficient to cover
the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to
deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days
from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that
said check has been dishonored for lack of insufficiency of funds
shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense
or fraudulent act. (As amended by RA 4885, approved June 17, 1967.)]
(e) By obtaining any food, refreshment or accommodation at a hotel,
inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apartment house
and the like without paying therefor, with intent to defraud the
proprietor or manager thereof, or by obtaining credit at hotel, inn,
restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apartment house by
the use of any false pretense, or by abandoning or surreptitiously
removing any part of his baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house or apartment house after obtaining
credit, food, refreshment or accommodation therein without paying
for his food, refreshment or accommodation.
3. Through any of the following fraudulent means:
(a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document.
(b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in
a gambling game.
(c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in part,
any court record, office files, document or any other papers.
Art. 316. Other forms of swindling. - The penalty of arresto mayor
in its minimum and medium period and a fine of not less than the
value of the damage caused and not more than three times such value,
shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who, pretending to be owner of any real property,
shall convey, sell, encumber or mortgage the same.
2. Any person, who, knowing that real property is encumbered,
shall dispose of the same, although such encumbrance be not recorded.
3. The owner of any personal property who shall wrongfully take
it from its lawful possessor, to the prejudice of the latter or
any third person.
4. Any person who, to the prejudice of another, shall execute any
fictitious contract.
5. Any person who shall accept any compensation given him under
the belief that it was in payment of services rendered or labor
performed by him, when in fact he did not actually perform such
services or labor.
6. Any person who, while being a surety in a bond given in a
criminal or civil action, without express authority from the court
or before the cancellation of his bond or before being relieved
from the obligation contracted by him, shall sell, mortgage, or,
in any other manner, encumber the real property or properties with
which he guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation.
>
> The main question and concern is: has the period for
> filing fraud prescribed?
Sorry. I couldn't find any info on that.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Benjamin L. Guadiz
soc.culture.filipino <pusongpino...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in
message news:040278db...@usw-ex0109-070.remarq.com...
=======
=======
MY TURN:
Republic Act No. 3326, (otherwise known as " . An Act to
Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by
Special Acts And Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When
Prescription Shall Begin to Run ."), SECTION 2 provides:
SECTION 2: Prescription shall begin to run from the day
of the commission of the violation of the law, ***and if
the same shall not be known at the time, from the DISCOVERY
thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its
investigation and punishment.*** (emphasis mine)
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings
are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin
to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons
not constituting jeopardy.
Provisions of fraud are amply provided include, but not
limited to, The Revised Penal Code; Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019); and to a certain extent,
Heinous Crimes Act (R.A. No. 7659).
Although "facts" of the above-mentioned case are not exhaustively
recited, I am of the opinion that, dependent on certain or
qualified circumstances, fraud as well as the perpetuation and
commission thereof, are continuing crimes; hence not subject
to prescription. The bar to prescripion (supra) ***may*** therefore
apply. Now even assuming said felonies are prescriptive in nature
and a motion of estoppel instituted, plaintiffs can still initiate
civil proceedings in connection with, or independent of,
the criminal charges filed. (Rules of Court, Rule 111, Sections
1, 2, 3, 4 & 5).
Plaintiff's case of recovering rightful ownership of land at
bar is tremendously bolstered since the measure of proof in civil
action is "preponderance of evidence" whereas the standard
"beyond a reasonable doubt" is mandatory in criminal cases.
Pursuant to the legal principle ***NEMO DAT QUOD NON
HABET*** (one cannot give what one does not have),
Article 1459 of the Civil Code of The Philippines requires
that at the time of DELIVERY or CONSUMMATION stage of
(contracts) sale, the seller must be the owner of the thing sold;
otherwise, vendor cannot comply with the obligation to transfer
ownership to the buyer. In the case thus stated, VENDEES cannot
now claim rightful ownership to the real property (land) in question
since by the unlawful act of forgery (which is a criminal offense,
thus a felony) VENDOR had NO absolute ownership, or even the
right to ownership; therefore, NO lawful CONTRACT / Deed of
Absolute Sale existed between parties. (Cavite Development Bank
& Far East Bank and Trust Company vs. Spouses Lim and
Court of Appeals, GR No. 131679 Promulgated by Supreme Court,
cond Division, ebruary 1, 2000)
Where there is NO valid contract, no rights are transferred.
With respect to any questions as to whether or not "vendees"
can go against the rightful owner, there being NO showing they
have legal rights thereto, it means their only recourse is to
file a lawsuit against the vendor. While the deceased attorney
may have been in collusion, civil liabilities can be instituted
by the rightful owners against his ***ESTATE***. Should a legal
action be commenced by the vendees against the rightful owner(s)
any tax receipts or other exhibits proferred confer NO ownership
right; said exhibits only provide an indicia of ***claim to
ownership***.
Hopefully my insights are of value to esteemed SCFers and PP2.
manong ben
bl...@ix.netcom.com
bl...@earthlink.net
Colton, CA 92324
USA
Dirty Sick Pig
>
> BTW, there is another subscriber here who used to sign his
> name as Mang Ben or Ben Guadiz. Like you, he is quite
> informed about the Constitution and the Philippine
> Laws...but he has not posted for a long time.
I guess it has something to do with his membership in the bar. To get
his attention, just do what I did in the subject line.
TanduayRum
MY TURN:
Republic Act No. 3326, (otherwise known as " … An Act to Establish
Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts
And Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall
Begin to Run …"), SECTION 2 provides:
SECTION 2: Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the
commission of the violation of the law, ***and if the same
shall not be known at the time, from the DISCOVERY thereof
and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and
punishment.*** (emphasis mine)
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings
are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin
to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons
not constituting jeopardy.
Provisions of fraud are amply provided include, but not
limited to, The Revised Penal Code; Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019); and to a certain extent,
Heinous Crimes Act (R.A. No. 7659).
Although "facts" of the above-mentioned case are not exhaustively
recited, I am of the opinion that, dependent on certain or qualified
circumstances, fraud as well as the perpetuation and
commission thereof, are continuing crimes; hence not subject
to prescription. The bar to prescription (supra) ***may*** therefore
apply. Now even assuming said felonies are prescriptive in nature
and a motion of estoppel instituted, plaintiffs can still initiate
civil proceedings in connection with, or independent of,
the criminal charges filed. (Rules of Court, Rule 111, Sections
1, 2, 3, 4 & 5).
Plaintiff's case of recovering rightful ownership of land at
bar is tremendously bolstered since the measure of proof in civil
action is "preponderance of evidence" whereas the standard
"beyond a reasonable doubt" is mandatory in criminal cases.
Pursuant to the legal principle ***NEMO DAT QUOD NON
HABET*** (one cannot give what one does not have),
Article 1459 of the Civil Code of The Philippines requires
that at the time of DELIVERY or CONSUMMATION stage of
(contracts) sale, the seller must be the owner of the thing
sold; otherwise, vendor cannot comply with the obligation to
transfer ownership to the buyer. In the case thus stated,
VENDEES cannot now claim rightful ownership to the real
property (land) in question since by the unlawful act of forgery
(which is a criminal offense, thus a felony) VENDOR had NO
absolute ownership, or even the right to ownership; therefore,
NO lawful CONTRACT / Deed of Absolute Sale existed
between parties. (Cavite Development Bank & Far East
Bank and Trust Company vs. Spouses Lim and Court of
Appeals, GR No. 131679 Promulgated byThe Supreme Court,
Second Division, February 1, 2000).
Where there is NO valid contract, no rights are transferred.
With respect to any questions as to whether or not "vendees"
can go against the rightful owner, there being NO showing
they have legal rights thereto, it means their only recourse is to
file a lawsuit against the vendor. While the deceased attorney
may have been in collusion, civil liabilities can be instituted
by the rightful owners against his ***ESTATE***. Should a
lega laction be commenced by the vendees against the rightful
owner(s) any tax receipts or other exhibits proferred confer
NO ownership right; said exhibits only provide an indicia of
***claim to ownership***.
Hopefully my insights are of value to esteemedSCFers and PP2.
soc.culture.filipino
You are heaven sent. Thanks. You certainly are a big
help. I owe you one.
Glad to hear from you again. Have you been away for a
while?
A lot of issues on federalism etc...constitution and law is
being discussed here...It would be interesting to hear your
views and points of clarification.
Regards.
PusongPinoye2
Pusong Pinoye2
aid.
Pusong Pinoye2
Dirty Sick Pig
Clairvoyance subjects were force-fed on Mr. Ben during his law school
days.
Dirty Sick Pig
All right, counselor! Light or dark?
WhiteCastlePig
(birginkok ok too)
soc.culture.filipino
Mr. DSP....thanks for the tip on how to connect with Manong
Ben. It worked. He emailed me back and with the posting
he put here, I am all set....
As for your invitation, I can use two virgins,
and two lines of coke...one for each one of
them....hehehehehe...as for me, with my on again and off
again high blood sugar condition...I will stay with Viagra.
Been a while since I had the real thing....beergincoke, ah
mean....the other one too....hheehhehe.
Have a good one.
Dirty Sick Pig
>
> In article <393B0678...@hotmail.com>, Dirty Sick Pig
> <drtys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > TanduayRum wrote:
> > All right, counselor! Light or dark?
> > WhiteCastlePig
> > (birginkok ok too)
>
> Mr. DSP....thanks for the tip on how to connect with Manong
> Ben. It worked. He emailed me back and with the posting
> he put here, I am all set....
I don't think I had anything to do with it. More like coincidence. I
looked at the times of postings, and it looked like Manong Ben and I
posted almost at the same time. To tell you the truth, I don't know the
mechanics of PING. I only have a vague idea but I've seen it work. I'm
sure the netgods here will oblige us with an explanation and
demonstration of PINGing.
> As for your invitation, I can use two virgins,
> and two lines of coke...one for each one of
> them....hehehehehe...as for me, with my on again and off
> again high blood sugar condition...I will stay with Viagra.
Rum is sugar cane liquor, but the distillation process turns it into a
good complement for Viagra.
intsik beho
If intsik beho steals a hundred dollars from Pusong Pinoye, and uses it to
purchase stolen car stereo from Cabalo Looney Store. The application of law
would say that Cabalo Looney Store cannot acquire ownership of the money
because intsik beho does not have legal title to the money.
But Cabalo Looney Store had no knowledge that intsik beho is a crook, then
Cabalo
Looney Store acquires legal ownership of the money and can do whatever
it wishes to do with the money voluntarily.
Now, given Cabalo's record of selling stolen merchandise, would intsik beho
become the rightful owner of stolen stereo even if Cabalo has defective
title to the merchandise?
"soc.culture.filipino" <pusongpino...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in
message news:040278db...@usw-ex0109-070.remarq.com...
> Thanks, Boracay Bill. I tried searching on my own but came
> up empty-handed also, that is why I posted. Call
> it "mental telepathy", but I was really hoping you would
> answer my question. And sure enough you did. I have
> printed your posting here and follow up on the referenced
> articles on fraud, etc.
>
> BTW, there is another subscriber here who used to sign his
> name as Mang Ben or Ben Guadiz. Like you, he is quite
> informed about the Constitution and the Philippine
> Laws...but he has not posted for a long time. Wonder if
> you know how I can contact this gentleman.
>
> Thanks again for the help. I also could not remember the
> name of the Pilipino lawyer who is active in the internet,
> but you came up with it: Chan Robles. This will help, I
> am sure.
>
> Muchas gracias, amigo.
>
> Pusong Pinoye2
>
>
Hechizo
intsik beho <lima...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Kki%4.8085$PT4....@news1.crdva1.bc.home.com...
> Loco Poco 101
>
> If intsik beho steals a hundred dollars from Pusong Pinoye, and uses it to
> purchase stolen car stereo from Cabalo Looney Store. The application of
law
> would say that Cabalo Looney Store cannot acquire ownership of the money
> because intsik beho does not have legal title to the money.
>
> But Cabalo Looney Store had no knowledge that intsik beho is a crook, then
> Cabalo
> Looney Store acquires legal ownership of the money and can do whatever
> it wishes to do with the money voluntarily.
>
A looney store... LOL! Actually it should be "loonie", shouldn't it? You
must be from Canada. FYI for our friends in the south, a loonie store is
also a dollar store... A dollar coin in Canada is called a "loonie" because
the coin features a Canada goose we simply call a "loon" and the head of Her
Majesty the Queen on the other side... LOL... What a combination!
H.
intsik beho
District.
"Hechizo" <hec...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:mri%4.35437$dK2.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
grebl...@gmail.com
SEXWATCH
@googlegroups.com:
>
>
All depends on how high level your corrupt Flip friends are. And how much
they owe you. And how much you bribe the right crooked judges and
attorneys. You really expect a serious answer to your question in a Country
that cannot find it's ass with both hands and a flashlight in the dark?
el...@students.coconino.edu
> Basically, I am searching for the law on fraud in the
> Philippines.
>
> prescriptive period, or is governed by the Statute of
> Limitations.
>
> If it is governed by this Statute, what is the prescriptive
> period? How many years before one is "estopped" from
> filing and prospering on a charge of fraud?
>
> signature of another on a fake real estate (land sale).
> The incident happened in 1971. But the true owner of the
> land discovered of the fraudulent act only recently (March
> 2000).
>
> Can the true and rightful owner still file a claim?
>
> A side issue is the matter of taxes. The true owner, who
> now resides in the USA was sending payments for the taxes
> thru his lawyer, who passed away recently (March 2000).
>
> It turned out that payments were remitted to the government
> only until 1971. (possibility of collusion between the
> lawyer and this fraudulent owner exists--but that is
> another matter)
>
> filing fraud prescribed?
>
>
> PusongPinoye2
SEXWATCH
news:4471713d-cc9a-45f2...@googlegroups.com:
> I have question. If someone commit fraud for the amount of 25k pesos
> but it was returned. Is there still an imprisonmemt??
>
are your friends?