Practice question
An accused argues that estafa can theoretically be committed without falsifying a public document, so the proved use of a forged public authorization to carry out this particular fraud can never be a necessary means. Which response follows Carungcong?
- The availability of other possible methods does not alone defeat the actual necessary-means relationship established in the case.
- Every possible method must be identical before Article 48 applies.
- A public-document offense is always an indispensable statutory element of estafa.
- The court must ignore the actual scheme.
- Any document anywhere automatically establishes complex liability.
Legal references
- Revised Penal Code, Article 48 as amended, text and current two-branch rule reproduced in People v Reyes, G.R. No. 260030, May 19, 2025: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/may2025/gr_260030_2025.html
- Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. de Carungcong v People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010, main decision, necessary means and falsification-estafa: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_181409_2010.html
- People v Sendaydiego, G.R. Nos. L-33253 and L-33254, January 20, 1978, main decision, falsification to conceal malversation distinguished from necessary means: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1978/jan1978/gr_33254_1978.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.