Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2516)
Facts:
The case involves Ang Tek Lian as the petitioner and the Court of Appeals as the respondent. The events leading to the case began on November 16, 1946, when Ang Tek Lian issued a rubber check for the amount of P4,000, drawn on the China Banking Corporation, payable to "cash." He delivered this check to Lee Hua Hong in exchange for cash, claiming he needed the money urgently but could not withdraw it from the bank as it was closed. On November 18, 1946, Lee Hua Hong presented the check to the drawee bank for payment, but it was dishonored due to insufficient funds, as Ang Tek Lian had only P335 in his account at that time. The Court of Appeals found Lee Hua Hong's testimony credible, which detailed how Ang Tek Lian had assured him of sufficient funds in the bank. Despite multiple attempts to contact Ang Tek Lian after the check was dishonored, he could not be located until summoned by the City Fiscal's Office due to the estafa complaint filed against...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2516)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
Ang Tek Lian was convicted of estafa (swindling) by the Court of First Instance of Manila for issuing a rubber check. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.The Transaction:
On November 16, 1946, Ang Tek Lian drew a check (Exhibit A) for P4,000 from the China Banking Corporation, payable to "cash." He delivered the check to Lee Hua Hong in exchange for P4,000 in cash.Dishonor of the Check:
On November 18, 1946, the check was presented to the bank but was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Ang Tek Lian's bank balance on both November 16 and 18 was only P335.Testimony of Lee Hua Hong:
Lee Hua Hong testified that Ang Tek Lian approached him on November 16, 1946, claiming he urgently needed P4,000 but could not withdraw it from the bank as it was closed. Relying on Ang Tek Lian's assurance of sufficient funds and their prior business relationship, Lee Hua Hong gave him the cash. Despite repeated attempts to notify Ang Tek Lian of the dishonored check, he could not be located until summoned by the City Fiscal's Office.Findings of the Court of Appeals:
The Court of Appeals accepted Lee Hua Hong's testimony as credible and found that Ang Tek Lian knowingly issued the check without sufficient funds.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Elements of Estafa:
Under Article 315, paragraph (d), subsection 2 of the Revised Penal Code, estafa is committed when a person issues a check knowing that they have no funds or insufficient funds in the bank to cover the amount, and fails to inform the payee of such circumstances.Bearer Checks and Endorsement:
A check payable to "cash" is a bearer instrument under the Negotiable Instruments Law (Section 9[d]). The drawee bank may pay it to the person presenting it without requiring the drawer's endorsement. The lack of endorsement does not negate the liability for estafa if the dishonor is due to insufficient funds.Bank Practices:
While banks may require identification or endorsement for bearer checks in certain circumstances, the dishonor of Ang Tek Lian's check was solely due to insufficient funds, not the form of the check or the lack of endorsement.Finality of Factual Findings:
The Supreme Court upheld the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, emphasizing that such findings are final and binding unless there is a clear error or misapprehension of facts.Affirmation of Penalty:
The Court found no reason to modify the penalty imposed by the lower courts, as it was in accordance with the law.