Sei sulla pagina 1di 3


The People of the Philippines vs Eriberto Jose (Estafa)

According to the complainant, the accused asked her for P21,000 cash in
exchange for a postdated check accused Jose will issue in her favor. On June
11, 1970 complainant went to the drawee bank to cash the check but was told
by one of the tellers thereat, to comeback on June 15, 1970. As instructed
complainant returned to the drawee bank on June 15, 1970 and presented the
check for encashment but the same was dishonored. The issue in this case is
CASE DIGEST whether or not the accused is guilty to a charge of estafa for having defrauded
and deceived complainant through false representation in the amount of
P21,000 in exchange of a post dated check which check when encashed was
dishonored? The court held that there can be no liability for estafa since failure
to pay merely give rise to civil liability on the part of the barrower, the accused.
The check merely partook the nature of promissory note and not the very
means of defraudation.

Let us now proceed to the P21,000 in cash allegedly given in exchange for the
check. Complainant story on this point that the P10,000 thereof came from her;
P8,000 from his brother and P3,000 from his brother in law. This P10,000 of
hers allegedly came from her hard earned savings for a period of years.
P10,000 at that time(1970) is decidedly a very substantial amount, not too
MEANINGFUL many can afford to produce at a moment's notice and a very few can
STATEMENT aquander. And this is so even during these days when the purchasing
power of the peso had been greatly reduced. Why then be so complainant
be so lax and apparently too accommodating in giving it to the accused
for no beneficial return or profit whatsoever, except in exchange for a
check which is even postdated? Complainant certainly with her educational
background as observed by the trial court, could not be so naïve and reckless.

CODE Sense of justice

I believe Justice Cuevas wrote such statement because he believes that the
prosecution failed to establish each and every element of the offense charge
and proof to suffice for conviction must be beyond reasonable doubt. I gave the

CODE code sense of justice because of the maxim "He who comes into equity must
EXPLANATION come with clean hands”. It must be noted from the very words and admission of
the complainant herself that the moment she gave to the accused was not in
truth and in fact for the check but in reality a loan with the obligation to pay the

CASE NO. 2 The People of the Philippines vs Geronimo Ubana (Grave Oral
DETAILS Defamation)
Accused-appellant and complainant are both members of the San Pascual
Police Force; the former being chief of police thereof, and the latter the
patrolman therein. Complainant arrived at the municipal building of the
aforesaid municipality upon being summoned by the appellant. The latter who
appeared irritated and fed up by the usual tardiness and lack of punctuality on
the part of the complainant in reporting for duty, scolded and reprimanded
complainant during which occasion. Per prosecution's version, the accused-
appellant uttered the following”Good that you have arrived, you are aways late
in your work you don't know your duty. You are an animal. You are only good in
receiving your salary. I told you to apprehend the gambling in Halabangbaybay,
why did you not deliver to me the money?” Hence, whether or not this
constitutes grave oral defamation? The court held no. he record is replete with
evidence that complainant had always been tardy and derelict in the
performance of his duties as a police officer. His tardiness on reporting for duty
that took place on May 9, 1973 is definitely not the first but only one in a series
such that appellant is already fed up with him.

It is not unusual then that the accused must have been mad and angry when
he scolded and reprimanded the herein complainant. He must have been
motivated to correct the bad and and undesirable habit of a subordinate under
MEANINGFUL his command. It is clear that the intent to defame, dishonor, discredit and
STATEMENT subject the offended party to ridicule could not have been the purpose of the
alleged defamatory imputation assuming it was really made, but merely an
incident to an act which has another objective and could not suffice for
purposes of conviction in a prosecution of this nature.

CODE Knowledge/Understanding of typical behavior

I believe Justice Cuevas wrote such statement because the accused-appellant

was already fed up by the complainant's behavior and the purpose in scolding
CODE him is not to defame him but rather to correct the bad and undesirable habit. I
EXPLANATION gave the code “knowledge/understanding of typical behavior” because I
believe that this case tackles about one's behavior the man also erred when
being fed up.


Be brief, yet complete. It must clearly show the facts, issues, and holdings
(decisions). It must not exceed 250 characters.

MEANINGFUL Type the meaningful statements here in verbatim. It is possible that there will
be more than one meaningful statement for one case. Just add more cells
when needed. For each meaningful statement, there is a corresponding code.

Type the code to the corresponding meaningful statement. You may use any of
CODE the codes already applied, found in Annex A: Table of Results, if and when

Answer the questions: Why do you think Justice Cuevas wrote such
statement? What affected his decision in this case? Why did you give the code
to such statement? Justify.

Write your reflections about this activity.

1. How did you find the research (dwelling) process and discovering of
meaningful statements?
2. How did you prepare for this activity?
3. What can you say about legal formalism and realism?
4. After reading some of Justice Cuevas’ life’s work, what can you say
about him, his writings and judicial decision-making?
5. Other reflections, realizations, comments, if any.