Case Digest (G.R. No. 50173)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 50173)
Facts:
The case Haniel R. Castro and Pio C. Castro v. Hon. Rafael T. Mendoza, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch VI, and the People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 50173, was decided on September 21, 1993 by the Supreme Court Third Division, Vitug, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners are Haniel R. Castro (son) and Pio C. Castro (father); the respondents are Hon. Rafael T. Mendoza, judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch VI (named in his official capacity), and the People of the Philippines. The criminal information charged the Castros with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, for issuing a check that was dishonored.
The underlying facts: between October and November 1974 Victor Elipe sold and delivered construction materials to Pio Castro on credit, the unpaid balance reaching P18,081.15. On April 21, 1975 Haniel issued Insular Bank check No. TAG 1600-702 for P18,200 (for his father’s account). When presented, the check was dishonored because the account had been closed. Elipe made repeated demands; when payments were not forthcoming he filed complaint leading to the estafa information, alleging issuance of a bad check in payment of an obligation.
At the Court of First Instance, Cebu, Branch VI, the trial court (Judge Rafael T. Mendoza) convicted both petitioners on February 6, 1979 of estafa under Article 315(2)(d) as charged and sentenced each to an indeterminate term and ordered indemnification of the complainant. The petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court (seeking reversal of the conviction). The Solicitor General recommended acquittal. The Supreme Court, invoking earlier en banc authorities and construing Article 315(2)(d) and the timing of later legislation, reviewed the conviction and the legal questions arising from the facts.
Issues:
- Does the issuance of a check in payment of a pre-existing obligation constitute estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 4885?
- May Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Check Law), enacted 03 April 1979, be applied retroactively to penalize the petitioners for acts committed in April 1975?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)