Mr. Gray opened a savings account with Bank A with an initial deposit of P50,000.00. A few days later, he deposited a check for P200,000.00 drawn from Bank B and endorsed by Mr. White. Ten days later, Mr. Gray withdrew the P200,000.00 from his account. Mr. White later complained to Bank B when the amount of P200,000.00 was later debited to his account, as he did not issue the check and his signature thereon was forged. Mr. Gray subsequently deposited another check signed by Mr. Whitefor P200,000.00, which amount he later withdrew. Upon receiving the amount, Mr. Gray was arrested by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
Mr. Gray was convicted of estafa and attempted estafa, both through the use of commercial documents. (4%)
(A) Mr. Gray claims as defense that, except for Mr. White’s claim of forgery, there was no evidence showing that he was the author of the forgery and Mr. White did not suffer any injuries as to the second check (attempted estafa). Rule on the defense of Mr. Gray.
(B) Mr. Gray claims that he was entrapped illegally because there was no showing that the second check was a forgery and, therefore, his withdrawal based on the second check was a legal act. Is Mr. Gray correct?
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Gray's defenses are untenable, and his claim of illegal entrapment is incorrect. Under the Revised Penal Code, the possessor and user of a forged commercial document is presumed to be its author. In attempted estafa,
Unlock the full Criminal Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
What presumption arises when a person possesses and negotiates a forged check?
The possessor and user of a forged commercial document is presumed to be its forger.
Is actual financial damage required to consummate Attempted Estafa through falsification of commercial documents?
Attempted estafa through falsification requires intent to defraud and overt acts without requiring actual damage.
How does entrapment differ from instigation under Philippine criminal law?
Entrapment traps a person executing a criminal design, while instigation induces the crime.
Why does Mr. Gray's claim of lack of damage fail regarding the second forged check?
Choices available with full access.
What is the effect of a valid entrapment operation on the criminal liability of the accused?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Presumption of Forgery
Under Philippine criminal jurisprudence, the possessor and user of a forged commercial document who utters or negotiates it and profits thereby is presumed to be the forger. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation of how the possessor came into possession of the forged instrument, the legal presumption applies that the possessor forged the check himself.
2. Attempted Estafa
Under Article 6 in relation to Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, attempted estafa through falsification of a commercial document does not require actual financial damage or prejudice. The crime is committed when the offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts of negotiating or encashing a forged check with intent to defraud.
3. Validity of Entrapment
Under Philippine law, entrapment is a sanctioned law enforcement scheme where ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and apprehending a criminal in the execution of his criminal plan. Entrapment does not bar prosecution, nor does it negate criminal intent when the impulse to commit the crime originates in the mind of the offender.