Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 307 views

    SAMSON V CA

    Uploaded by

    Rain Co
    Rufino Samson helped secure and cash checks for two alleged claimants at the request of his former classmate Amado Cruz, but did not verify the claimants' identities. It was later discovered the checks were received and cashed by imposters. While Samson did not have criminal intent, the court found he acted with gross negligence in not ensuring the checks went to the real claimants. As a result, Samson was convicted of estafa through falsification of commercial documents due to his role in allowing the imposters to wrongfully obtain and cash the checks.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    SAMSON V CA

    Uploaded by

    Rain Co
    307 views2 pages
    Rufino Samson helped secure and cash checks for two alleged claimants at the request of his former classmate Amado Cruz, but did not verify the claimants' identities. It was later discovered the checks were received and cashed by imposters. While Samson did not have criminal intent, the court found he acted with gross negligence in not ensuring the checks went to the real claimants. As a result, Samson was convicted of estafa through falsification of commercial documents due to his role in allowing the imposters to wrongfully obtain and cash the checks.

    Original Title

    SAMSON v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Rufino Samson helped secure and cash checks for two alleged claimants at the request of his former classmate Amado Cruz, but did not verify the claimants' identities. It was later discovered the checks were received and cashed by imposters. While Samson did not have criminal intent, the court found he acted with gross negligence in not ensuring the checks went to the real claimants. As a result, Samson was convicted of estafa through falsification of commercial documents due to his role in allowing the imposters to wrongfully obtain and cash the checks.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    307 views2 pages

    SAMSON V CA

    Uploaded by

    Rain Co
    Rufino Samson helped secure and cash checks for two alleged claimants at the request of his former classmate Amado Cruz, but did not verify the claimants' identities. It was later discovered the checks were received and cashed by imposters. While Samson did not have criminal intent, the court found he acted with gross negligence in not ensuring the checks went to the real claimants. As a result, Samson was convicted of estafa through falsification of commercial documents due to his role in allowing the imposters to wrongfully obtain and cash the checks.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SAMSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.

     Saw a couple at the train station looking


    G.R. Nos. L-10364 and L-10376 suspiciously at him, and Samson suspected
    Bautista Angelo, J. that they were talking about him. From there,
    he concluded that these must be the fake
    Petitioner: Rufino T. Samson claimants and reported this to the police.
    Respondents: Court of Appeals, et al.  October 6
    o Espiridion Lascaño was too old and
    FACTS weak to leave the house
     October 2, 1948 – Amado L. Cruz asked the o Rosalinda Paras was at school
    help of his former classmate, Rufino Samson where she was teaching. Did not
    (petitioner) to get the checks of two claimants receive check.
    at Camp Murphy.  October 8 – Samson reported to Sgt. Luis
     Samson was assured by Cruz twice of the Balignasan, affidavit and suspect’s
    identity of the “claimants” and that he knew fingerprints were taken.
    them for a long time.
     Examined residence certificates attached to PROCEDURE
    claim papers. 1. Court of First Instance (Manila)
     Samson and Cruz went to Lt. Manuel a. Samson, jointly charged w/ Amado
    Valencia Cruz & Bonifacio Vergara + two
    o requested to act as guarantor others for the complex crime of
    o believed in the representation of Samson estafa through falsification of two
    and Cruz checks from PNB
    o went with them to the Deceased Check b. Pled not guilty
    Delivery Section c. Found guilty.
     Secured the release of ff checks: i. Penalty: 6yrs & 1day min.; 9yrs
    o Rosalina Paras (P6417.11) 4mos. & 1day prison mayor
    o Espiridion Lascaño (P6417.10) max. + Fine of P2500 & costs.
     Then, the three went to the Bureau of Idemnify cost of 2 checks equal
    Treasury, Finance building, to cash the to P5417.11
    checks. 2. Court of Appeals
     Cashed by teller Rosario Mallari who knew a. Lower court decision stands
    Samson. b. Reduced penalty (Cruz + Vergara)
     Rosalina Paras did not know how to sign her c. Cruz charged only w/ estafa
    name so her thumbmark was on the back of through gross imprudence
    the check. i. Penalty: 4mos. arresto
    o Samson and Francisco Ordoñez signed mayor
    as witnesses below 3. Supreme Court
     Espiridion Lascaño signed at the back a. For review
    o Samson signed as last indorser
     Accounts delivered to Samson and Cruz ISSUES + HOLDING
     Francisco Ordoñez counted the money and 1. Whether or not Samson committed gross
    gave it to the claimants imprudence:
     Went to Aristocrat Retaurant Yes. Not willful, but negligent. No
    o P300 to officers for their help criminal intent, but failed to take
    o +P10 Samson’s taxi fare necessary steps to ensure that the checks
    are received by the actual claimants.
     given by Bonifacio Vergara
    Assurance from a former classmate is
     October 4 – Severino Anda told Samson that
    not enough to justify the disbursement.
    checks were delivered to wrong parties
    He must be wary of entrusting such an
     Samson left for Sorsogon to find real
    amount to people he’s never met before.
    claimants
    2. Whether or not offense is estafa through
    falsification of checks by negligence:
    Yes. Impersonators managed to secure
    the checks and cash them through the
    actions of the appellant.

    Article 17. RPC: Estafa through


    falsification of commercial document.
     Samson committed estafa by
    failing to provide honest
    information that is essential to
    the security of said commercial
    document (PNB checks)

    Rule 116. Section IV: “When there is


    variance between the offense charged in
    the complaint or information, and that
    was proved or established by the
    evidence, and the offense as charged is
    included in or necessarily includes the
    offense proved, the defendant shall be
    convicted of the offense proved
    included in that which is charged or the
    offense charged included in that which
    is proved.”
     defendant Samson convicted of
    crime that is proved. Regardless
    of the mismatch between
    offense charged vs what
    actually happened, he will be
    convicted based on what is
    proven.

    Section V: “Not all essential elements


    of the offense charged in the
    information be proved. It is sufficient
    that some of said essential elements or
    ingredients thereof be established to
    constitute the crime proved.”
     The fact that the checks were
    wrongfully claimed and cashed
    through the negligent actions of
    the defendant Samson was
    enough to convict him.

    You might also like