Case Digest (G.R. No. 55992)
Facts:
The case involves Lolita Banares as the petitioner and the Hon. Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines as respondents. The events leading to the case began in September 1974 when complainant Anita Diolosa Uy became acquainted with petitioner Banares. They engaged in several transactions involving the sale of jewelry, one of which occurred on October 7, 1974. During this transaction, Uy sold Banares a brilliant cut lady's ring and a pair of earrings valued at P43,000.00. In exchange, Banares issued a postdated check (No. BD 2364996 PA) dated October 14, 1974, assuring Uy that the check was good and sufficiently funded. However, after the transaction, Uy discovered the check was postdated and immediately contacted Banares, who requested additional time to make the deposit. Despite several extensions granted by Uy, the check was ultimately dishonored due to insufficient funds, as Banares's bank account had been closed. Uy then confronted Banares, who admitted...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 55992)
Facts:
Background of the Transaction
Complainant Anita Diolosa Uy and petitioner Lolita Banares engaged in several jewelry transactions starting September 1974. The transactions were arranged at the residence of Mrs. Angeles Zayco, Uy’s sister.
The October 7, 1974 Transaction
On October 7, 1974, Uy sold Banares a pair of earrings and a lady’s ring worth P43,000.00. In exchange, Banares issued Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company Check No. BD 2364996 PA, assuring Uy that the check was good and sufficiently funded. However, the check was postdated to October 14, 1974.
Discovery of the Postdated Check
After Banares left, Uy discovered the check was postdated. She attempted to contact Banares but was informed she was not yet home. Later, Banares called Uy, requesting a one-week extension to fund the check, assuring its reliability. Uy agreed.
Attempts to Enact the Check
On October 14, 1974, Banares requested another 20-day extension, to which Uy also agreed. On November 4, 1974, Uy sent an employee to encash the check, but the bank returned it, stating Banares’ account was closed.
Confrontation and Demand for Payment
Uy confronted Banares the next day, demanding payment or the return of the jewelry. Banares admitted she had pledged the jewelry and requested more time. Uy decided to file a case, leading to Banares being charged with estafa.
The Charge
Banares was charged with estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code for issuing a postdated check without sufficient funds, knowing her account was closed.
Trial and Conviction
The trial court convicted Banares of estafa and imposed an indeterminate sentence of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 21 years and 4 months of reclusion perpetua as maximum. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
Issue:
- Whether the postdated check was issued merely as a receipt or as payment for the jewelry.
- Whether deceit was present in the issuance of the check.
- Whether the check was issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation.
- Whether the Padilla amendment eliminated the defense that the accused informed the payee of insufficient funds.
- Whether the petitioner’s bank account was closed at the time of the check’s issuance.
- Whether the accounting and set-off defense is valid.
- Whether the check was issued for the jewelry in question or for other jewelry involved in a separate case.
- Whether the penalty imposed was correct.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court ruled that:
- The check was issued as payment, not as a receipt, based on the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties.
- Deceit was present as Banares issued the check knowing her account was closed and she had insufficient funds.
- The check was not issued for a pre-existing obligation but as consideration for the jewelry.
- The Padilla amendment eliminated the defense that the accused informed the payee of insufficient funds.
- The bank account was closed when the check was presented for encashment.
- The accounting and set-off defense was immaterial as the transaction was distinct and on a cash basis.
- The check was issued for the jewelry in question, not for other jewelry involved in a separate case.
- The penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence of 2 years, 11 months, and 11 days of prision correccional as minimum to 8 years, 8 months, and 21 days of prision mayor as maximum.
Ratio:
Nature of the Transaction
The Court emphasized that the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties indicate the check was issued as payment, not as a receipt.Deceit as an Element of Estafa
Deceit was established because Banares issued the check knowing her account was closed and she had insufficient funds. The Padilla amendment eliminates the defense that the accused informed the payee of insufficient funds.Issuance of the Check
The check was issued as consideration for the jewelry, not for a pre-existing obligation.Penalty
The penalty was modified to conform to the law in effect at the time of the offense, as Presidential Decree No. 818 cannot be applied retroactively.