G.R. No. 240882 - Mariano vs. G.V. Florida Transport

Manuel Nagrampa, petitioner, was charged with estafa and with two counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law).
The cases arose from transactions and subsequent dishonor of postdated checks issued in favor of Fedcor Trading Corporation (FEDCOR).

On 28 July 1989 in Quezon City, petitioner purchased a Yutani Poclain Backhoe Excavator Equipment from FEDCOR.
He made an immediate cash down payment of ₱50,000 and agreed to settle the remaining ₱150,000 via two postdated checks amounting to ₱75,000 each.
The checks issued were:

The checks were drawn against the account of the Security Bank and Trust Company.

Evidence showed that petitioner’s account was closed in May 1985, rendering the checks effectively drawn on a non-existent account.
The checks were dishonored upon presentation on 22 February 1990, due to insufficient funds.
Despite receiving notice of the dishonor, petitioner failed to redeem or make good the checks.

FEDCOR’s representative, Federico Santander, testified on the transaction details, the delivery of equipment, and the subsequent use of the equipment.
Security Bank’s signature verifier, Felix Mirano, testified regarding the signatures on the checks and confirmed that petitioner's account was already closed.
Petitioner claimed that he returned the defective backhoe to FEDCOR through the sales agent Ronnie Bote; however, this claim was contradicted by testimony regarding Bote’s limited authority and lack of corroborating evidence.
Petitioner admitted that during the pendency of the criminal case he made payments (totaling ₱15,000) to FEDCOR’s counsel, which further undermined his claim of having returned the equipment.

For the two counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22, petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment (two years) and ordered to pay ₱150,000 with legal interest.
A later decision found petitioner guilty of estafa, sentencing him to an indeterminate imprisonment (from prision mayor to reclusion temporal) and ordering payment of damages amounting to ₱135,000.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decisions with a subsequent modification of penalties on 21 July 2000.
Petitioner raised several arguments on appeal, including that no damage was caused as the equipment was returned and that the presentation of checks after the 90-day period negated liability under B.P. Blg. 22.
The Office of the Solicitor General defended the conviction based primarily on evidence that petitioner's bank account had been closed years before the checks were issued.

Whether the issuance of postdated checks drawn against a closed account, indicating insufficient funds, constitutes a violation of B.P. Blg. 22 even if the checks were presented after the 90-day period.
Whether the element of damage in the crime of estafa is met when the equipment delivered by FEDCOR was allegedly returned, notwithstanding conflicting testimony regarding the return.
Whether the delay in presenting the checks for payment affects the presumption of knowledge regarding the insufficiency of funds as required under B.P. Blg. 22.
Whether the petitioner’s subsequent payments (₱15,000) during the litigation serve as an admission of guilt or compromise that negates his claim of having rectified the matter by returning the equipment.
The appropriate imposition of penalty in light of the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 818 and the Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, including the possibility of imposing a fine versus imprisonment.