Practice question
An applicant voluntarily pays for a genuine overseas processing service. Only afterward does an intermediary make a false statement about the processing schedule. The prosecution relies solely on that later statement to prove that the original payment was induced by false pretenses. No earlier deceit or other fraudulent means is proved. Which conclusion is warranted on the stated proof?
- The original payment necessarily proves estafa because it concerns overseas work
- The later statement alone does not establish the prior or simultaneous inducing deceit required for this estafa charge
- Any later inaccurate statement automatically relates back to the payment
- Lack of an eventual overseas job conclusively supplies every missing fraud element
- Estafa is impossible whenever the service initially had a genuine purpose, regardless of other proof
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/aug2024/gr_235010_2024.html — People v. Valle y Lapurga, GR 235010, August 7, 2024, main decision.
- https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/68766 — People v. Marzan, GR 227093, September 21, 2022, main decision; estafa under Revised Penal Code Article 315(2)(a) and distinct recruitment offenses.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.