G.R. No. 221836 - Abalos y Puroc vs. People

In April 2011, petitioner Esther P. Abalos, introducing herself as “Vicenta Abalos” and accompanied by Christine Molina, went to the office of private complainant Elaine D. Sembrano at Manulife, Baguio City, and offered two EastWest Bank checks for rediscounting:

Total face value: ₱267,500.00

Sembrano agreed to rediscount upon assurances that the checks were valid, advanced petitioner ₱250,000.00 less 7% interest, and later learned that petitioner’s real name was Esther, not Vicenta. Upon presentment on due dates, both checks were dishonored for “Account Closed.” A demand letter sent October 23, 2011 went unheeded; petitioner promised payment but never remitted funds.

Petitioner denied fraud, asserting that the checks and a land title in the name of “Vicenta Abalos” were merely collateral for a loan negotiated by Molina. She claimed she did not personally negotiate rediscounting but only executed a real estate mortgage and later received proceeds (she returned ₱20,000.00 to Molina as commission).
On December 6, 2011, Sembrano filed an Information for estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, alleging deceit by issuance of checks without sufficient funds. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found petitioner guilty on November 29, 2012, sentencing her under the Indeterminate Sentence Law to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum, and ordered civil liability for ₱232,500.00 actual damages. On May 20, 2015, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified interest to 6% per annum from finality of its decision. Petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Whether the CA erred in finding petitioner guilty of estafa under Article 315(2)(d) RPC when, as she contends, the real transaction was a civil loan secured by collateral and lacked the element of deceit.
Whether all essential elements of estafa by issuance of a bad check—issuance of check in payment of obligation, lack of sufficient funds, drawer’s knowledge, and damage—were satisfactorily established.