G.R. No. 135051-52 - People vs. Arizobal

Petitioner Iluminada Batac (Batac) was charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by R.A. No. 4885.
The private complainant is Roger L. Frias (Frias).

On November 8, 1998, at the public market of Malasiqui, Pangasinan, Batac issued several post-dated checks to Frias totaling Php103,500.00.
Batac assured Frias that she had sufficient funds in her bank account to cover the checks. Frias accepted the checks in a rediscounting manner at a 5% rediscount rate.
The checks issued were post-dated from November 10 to November 18, 1998, drawn on Prime Bank, Calasiao branch.
On their respective due dates, the checks were dishonored by the bank due to "Account Closed."
Despite repeated demands and given five days to pay, Batac failed and refused to make good on the checks.

Batac pleaded not guilty and maintained that it was Erlinda Cabardo who issued and delivered the checks, not her.
Batac further argued that Frias’ claimed amount did not account for the 5% rediscount fee and that if any liability existed, it should be under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. Blg. 22), the Bouncing Checks Law, not estafa.
Frias testified that Batac personally delivered the checks and represented that they were funded, inducing him to rediscount the checks.
Frias’ sister, Ivy Luna Frias, corroborated the transaction details and Batac’s presence.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Batac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa and ordered her imprisonment and to pay restitution with interest.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed Batac’s conviction, emphasizing that Batac’s express admission of insufficient funds, her representations, and the evidence sufficiently proved estafa.
The CA modified the penalty imposed by the RTC and imposed interest starting from the filing date.

Whether Batac was properly held liable for estafa as defined under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the RPC for issuing post-dated checks without sufficient funds.

Whether Batac’s defense that Erlinda Cabardo, not Batac, issued the checks, negates her liability.

Whether Batac’s liability, if any, should be limited to violation of B.P. Blg. 22 — the Bouncing Checks Law — instead of estafa.

Proper penalty to impose given the amount involved and applicable laws including amendments under R.A. No. 10951.