Case Digest (G.R. No. 38774)
Facts:
The People of the Philippine Islands v. Aleko Lilius, G.R. No. 38774, December 23, 1933, the Supreme Court, Avanceaa, C.J., writing for the Court. The respondent-appellant Aleko Lilius was charged with estafa for issuing checks that were subsequently dishonored; the plaintiff-appellee was The People of the Philippine Islands with the Luneta Hotel (owned by Robert L. Hobbs) as offended party. The trial court convicted Lilius of estafa, sentenced him to one year and one day of prision correccional with accessory penalties, and ordered indemnity to the Luneta Hotel in the sum of P1,306.29 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.The underlying facts are that in January 1931 Lilius issued four checks drawn on the Jolo Branch of the Philippine National Bank in favor of the Luneta Hotel: Exhibit A (P500, Jan. 2, 1931), Exhibit B (P500, Jan. 9, 1931), Exhibit C (P372.17, Jan. 9, 1931), and Exhibit F (P340, Jan. 26, 1931). Exhibit A was issued in exchange for cash allegedly received from the hotel; Lilius testified that when he issued Exhibit A he told the hotel cashier he was not sure whether he then had sufficient funds but believed he did and would cable New York if necessary. Clayton corroborated that statement. The trial court mentioned this defense but still convicted, relying on the presumption that issuing a check is a positive averment of funds.
As to Exhibits B and C, the facts showed they were issued in payment of board and lodging already due; for Exhibit F the evidence was mixed, Hobbs initially said it was given in payment, later hesitated, and the Court accepted Lilius’s testimony that Exhibit F was issued to pay a pre-existing debt. The Supreme Court reviewed the record, compared bank balances (showing Lilius had a balance near or e...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the mere issuance of a check without sufficient funds constitute the crime of estafa?
- Can the issuance of a check in payment of a pre-existing debt constitute estafa where the maker la...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)