G.R. No. 105461 - Lazaro vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner Marlyn Lazaro was charged with the separate crimes of Estafa and Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law).
On September 24, 1990, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 86, Quezon City, rendered a joint decision in Criminal Case Nos. Q-90-13387 and Q-90-13388.
The trial court found Lazaro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating BP 22, sentencing her to one (1) year imprisonment and ordering her to indemnify complainant Rudy Chua P72,000.00; she was acquitted of the charge of estafa.
The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated March 31, 1992, affirmed the trial court’s decision in its entirety; a Motion for Reconsideration was subsequently denied on May 15, 1992.
The petition for review raises issues regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, alleged grave abuse of discretion by the appellate court, and errors in affirming the judgment of the lower court.

On or about October 13, 1989, Lazaro received an advance payment of Ninety Thousand Pesos (P90,000.00) from complainant Rudy Chua for sugar, cigarettes, and luncheon meat.
On October 27, 1989, a partial delivery of goods amounting to Eighteen Thousand Pesos (P18,000.00) was made by Lazaro; she was unable to complete the full delivery.
To refund the undelivered goods, Lazaro issued Prudential Bank Check No. 599175 dated October 28, 1989 in the amount of Seventy-Two Thousand Pesos (P72,000.00).
On October 30, 1989, Complainant Chua deposited the check, which was dishonored by the bank and stamped “Account Closed.”
In an attempt to remedy the situation, Lazaro subsequently indorsed a Trader’s Royal Bank Check No. 393173 (dated November 18, 1989), which was also dishonored with the same “Account Closed” remark.
Following these events, Chua sent a demand letter to Lazaro, requiring payment of the amount covered by the original check within five (5) days.
The failure of Lazaro to settle the amount led Chua to file complaints for both estafa and violation of BP 22.

Lazaro admitted receiving P90,000.00 and acknowledged her inability to deliver all the ordered goods.
She contended that she issued the dishonored check and later executed a Deed of Sale dated November 29, 1989, conveying her 1980 Toyota Corolla Liftback to Rudy Chua in satisfaction of her obligation.
Despite her submission of the Deed of Sale as evidence that her obligation had been extinguished, the lower courts maintained that such an act did not alleviate the liabilities under BP 22.
The evidence furnished by the prosecution and the subsequent judicial findings pointed to the fact that the mere issuance of a worthless check is penalized irrespective of any alleged extinguishment of debt.

Whether the evidence presented in the lower court was sufficient to support the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the violation of BP 22.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by denying the petitioner’s due process when it disregarded her argument that her obligation was already settled through the Deed of Sale.
Whether the affirmation of the lower court’s judgment by the appellate court was erroneous in light of the petitioner’s contention that the amount covered by the check had been paid.