Case Digest (G.R. No. 95796-97)
Facts:
Antonio Nieva, Jr. v. The Honorable Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 95796-97, May 02, 1997, the Supreme Court First Division, Hermosisima, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Antonio Nieva, Jr., owner of an auto repair shop in Quezon City, became acquainted with Alberto Joven and his father, the late Atty. Ramon Joven, who owned a Toyota dump truck and other idle construction equipment in Bacolor, Pampanga. In 1985 petitioner negotiated with Atty. Joven to lease the dump truck and agreed to repair it at his own expense, to be deducted from rentals; possession was turned over to petitioner on April 30, 1985, and a lease was executed on May 14, 1985.
When petitioner failed to repair the dump truck or to pay rentals, Atty. Joven demanded its return. Petitioner then offered to buy the truck; an absolute deed of sale was executed on June 10, 1985. About a week later petitioner delivered a post-dated check (No. 015417) dated July 31, 1985, for P70,000.00 as payment. The check, deposited at the Angeles City branch of the Bank of the Philippine Islands, was dishonored by the drawee Commercial Bank of Manila with the stamp “Account Closed.” Despite verbal and written demands, petitioner did not make good the check.
The Provincial Fiscal of San Fernando, Pampanga filed two Informations in the Regional Trial Court (Branch 45), Criminal Case No. 3228 for Estafa under Art. 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and Criminal Case No. 3229 for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. At arraignment petitioner pleaded not guilty. After trial the RTC convicted petitioner in both cases and imposed imprisonment, fines, accessory penalties, costs and indemnity to complainant’s heirs. The Court of Appeals (Sixteenth Division) affirmed. Petitioner sought review of the CA decision in the Supreme...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga have jurisdiction to try the cases where key acts (presentation/deposit of the check) occurred in Pampanga?
- Did the prosecution prove the elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code — in particular, was the postdated check issued prior to or simultaneous with the fraudulent act so as to be the efficient cause of the alleged defraudation?
- Was petitioner’s conviction properly based on the sole and allegedly uncorroborated testimony of Alberto Joven?
- Was petitioner properly convicted under Batas Pambans...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)