1. Estafa by using fictitious name is committed by any person who defrauds another by using fictitious name executed prior to or simultaneously with the parting of money or property by the victim (Art. 315, par. 2(a), RPC).


Elements:

(1) The accused used fictitious name;

(2) The accused used such deceitful means prior to or simultaneous with the execution of the fraud;

(3) The offended party relied on such deceitful means to part with his money or property; and

(4) The offended party suffered damage. (Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 199294, 31 July 2013)


2. Estafa by falsely pretending to possess power is committed by any person who defrauds another by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transaction, or other similar deceits, executed prior to or simultaneously with the parting of money or property by the victim. (Art. 315, par. 2(a), RPC)


Elements:

(1) The accused falsely pretended that he possesses (a) power, (b) influence, (c) qualifications, (d) property, (e) credit, (f) agency, (g) business or (h) imaginary transaction, or other similar deceits;

(2) The accused used such deceitful means prior to or simultaneous with the execution of the fraud;

(3) The offended party relied on such deceitful means to part with his money or property; and

(4) The offended party suffered damage. (Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 199294, 31 July 2013)


False Pretense of qualification to sell securities

Facts: In 1996, Mr. Y, President of Primelink Corporation, a real estate developer entered into a joint venture agreement with Pamana hotel to develop a P60 million project by building an exclusive residential resort in Subic, Zambales. Primelink Corporation commenced selling club memberships for the resort which was slated for completion in 1998. Mr. X purchased one membership share for the resort by installment and fully paid the balance by April 1998.

In 2002, Mr. X filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Y for estafa. The complaint was grounded on the fact that the Club remained undeveloped and Primelink failed to return Mr. X’s payment despite demands to do so. Mr. Y also discovered that Primelink had no license from the SEC to sell securities.

Held: Mr. Y is liable for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a), of the Revised Penal Code. Mr. Y used false pretenses when it sold membership shares to the public when it was not duly authorized to do so for failure to secure a license and registration from SEC. 

The registration requirement under BP 178 applies to all sales of securities "including every contract of sale or disposition of a security," regardless of the stage of development of the project on which the securities are based. No amount of "industry practice" works to amend these provisions on pre-sale registration.

Unlike estafa under paragraph 1 (b) of Article 315 of the Code, estafa under paragraph 2( a) of that provision does not require as an element of the crime proof that the accused misappropriated or converted the swindled money or property. All that is required is proof of pecuniary damage sustained by the complainant arising from his reliance on the fraudulent representation. (Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 199294, 31 July 2013)


The false statement or representation must constitute the very cause or the only motive which induces the offended party to part with his money

In the prosecution for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC,45 it is indispensable that the element of deceit, consisting in the false statement or fraudulent representation of the accused, be made prior to, or at least simultaneously with, the delivery of the thing by the complainant.

The false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, it being essential that such false statement or representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induces the offended party to part with his money. (Ambito v. People, G.R. No. 127327, February 13, 2009).


Bar Question (2014)

Malo, a clerk of court of a trial court, promised the accused in a drug case pending before the court, that he would convince the judge to acquit him for a consideration of P5 million. The accused agreed and delivered the money, through his lawyer, to the clerk of court. The judge, not knowing of the deal, proceeded to rule on the evidence and convicted the accused. Malo was charged with estafa under Article 315 because he misrepresented that he had influence, when he actually had none. Is the charge correct?

The charge of estafa by falsely pretending to have influence under Art. 315 (2)(a) is not correct. To be liable under this provision, there must be evidence that that the pretense of Malo that he possesses influence is false. Since there is no proof that Malo's representation was actually false, the criminal intent to deceive cannot be concluded. The fact that Malo failed to comply with his promise to convince the judge to acquit the accused does not necessarily mean that Malo has no influence over the judge. (Criminal Law Reviewer, Vol. II, Judge Marlo B. Campanilla)