Case Summary (G.R. No. 191622)
Trial Evidence and Factual Narrative
Frias testified that on 8 November 1998 petitioner, accompanied by Erlinda, came to his store and represented the checks were hers and duly funded; he purchased the checks at a 5% rediscount rate, petitioner signed the checks in his presence, and the checks were later dishonored. Ivy corroborated Frias’ account. Petitioner denied personal involvement, claimed Erlinda issued the checks, and questioned the rediscount transaction because Frias claimed the full aggregate amount rather than net proceeds.
RTC Findings and Sentence
The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa under Article 315(2)(d) RPC and sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty of 2 years, 10 months and 21 days (arresto mayor minimum) to 12 years (prision mayor maximum), and ordered reimbursement of Php103,500.00 with interest.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s finding of guilt but modified the penalty to an indeterminate term of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional (minimum) to 14 years, 8 months and 21 days of reclusion temporal (maximum). The CA ordered reimbursement of Php103,500.00 with six percent interest per annum from filing of the case until judgment, then twelve percent thereafter.
Issues on Review and Standard of Review
Petitioner raised factual disputes (identity of issuer, existence of rediscounting, and alternative liability under B.P. Blg. 22). The Supreme Court emphasized that a petition for review under Rule 45 raises questions of law and that findings of fact by the RTC and CA are generally binding unless one of the recognized exceptions applies; petitioner did not establish any exception.
Identity and Credibility Resolution
The Court credited Frias’ positive, categorical, and corroborated identification of petitioner as a transactor who represented the checks as funded and signed them in Frias’ presence. Petitioner’s denial and bare assertion that Erlinda was the issuer were found insufficient to overcome the prosecution’s evidence; the Court applied established principles that credible positive identification defeats a mere denial.
Elements of Estafa under Article 315(2)(d)
The Court reiterated the elements required: (1) issuance or postdating of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at issuance or postdating, (2) lack of funds or insufficient funds at the time of issuance, and (3) resulting fraud to the payee. The Court underscored that criminal estafa under this provision punishes the deceit in issuance as the efficient cause inducing the other party to part with money or property, not merely nonpayment.
Application of Facts to the Elements
The Court found that petitioner induced Frias to part with money by representing the checks were funded, identifying petitioner’s conduct (representation of funding, signing the checks, asserting her status as a school teacher) as deceptive representations. Petitioner expressly admitted having only a little over one thousand pesos in her account when the checks were issued, establishing knowledge of insufficiency. Frias was deprived of the aggregate amounts stated on the checks when they were dishonored; petitioner failed to make payment within the grace period. The Court concluded all elements of estafa under Art. 315(2)(d) were established beyond reasonable doubt.
Distinction from Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
The Court rejected petitioner’s contention that liability, if any, was limited to B.P. Blg. 22. It emphasized that estafa and B.P. Blg. 22 are distinct offenses: estafa requires deceit and damage, and is concerned with fraud against property, while B.P. Blg. 22 punishes issuance of dishonored checks without requiring deceit or damage and is principally a crime against public interest. Thus, conviction for estafa is proper where deceit and damage are proven.
Penalty Modification under RA No. 109
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 191622)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Iluminada Batac (Batac) assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 6 November 2009 in CA-G.R. CR No. 29462.
- The CA affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Case No. SCC-3026, which found Batac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa defined under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, committed against private complainant Roger L. Frias (Frias).
- RTC had convicted and sentenced Batac; the CA affirmed conviction but modified the penalty and ordered restitution with interest.
- The Supreme Court resolved the petition in G.R. No. 191622, June 06, 2018, with a Resolution penned by Justice Martires; the final disposition modified the penalty imposed by the CA and affirmed the decision in other respects.
Charge Allegation (as alleged in the Information)
- Sometime on November 8, 1998, in the public market, Municipality of Malasiqui, Province of Pangasinan, Batac, knowing she had no funds in the bank to cover the amount of the checks, by means of false pretenses and deceit and with intent to defraud, made, issued, and delivered to Frias several post-dated checks.
- The checks, drawn on Prime Bank, Calasiao, totaling P103,500.00, were listed by check numbers, amounts and dates in the Information (see Facts section for the enumerated checks).
- When the checks were presented for encashment, all were returned unpaid for reason "ACCOUNT CLOSED"; despite repeated demands, Batac failed and refused to make good the checks, to the damage and prejudice of Frias in the total amount of P103,500.00.
- Offense charged: Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code.
Facts (as found in the record and summarized by the courts a quo)
- On 8 November 1998, Batac and Erlinda Cabardo (Erlinda) went to Frias’ store inside the public market, Municipality of Malasiqui, Pangasinan, to have checks rediscounted.
- Batac assured Frias that the checks were hers and were duly funded; Frias was persuaded to buy a total of fourteen (14) checks at a rediscounted rate of five percent (5%) of the total aggregate amount.
- Batac affixed her signature on the face of the checks in the presence of Frias.
- Upon the due dates, Frias attempted to deposit the checks to his bank accounts; the drawee bank, Prime Bank, Calasiao Branch, refused payment for the reason "Account Closed" and returned the checks to Frias.
- Frias proceeded to Batac's house to demand payment, giving her five (5) days to complete payment; Batac failed to do so, prompting Frias to file the estafa case.
- The checks enumerated in the Information as presented in the source are:
- Check No. 0050275, Prime Bank, Calasiao — P8,000.00 — Date: Nov. 18, 1998
- Check No. 0050278, Prime Bank, Calasiao — P8,500.00 — Date: Nov. 18, 1998
- Check No. 0050263, Prime Bank, Calasiao — P8,000.00 — Date: Nov. 18, 1998
- Check No. 0050265, Prime Bank, Calasiao — P7,500.00 — Date: Nov. 18, 1998
- Check No. 0050277, Prime Bank, Calasiao — P8,000.00 — Date: Nov. 18, 1998
- Check No. 0050262, Prime Bank, Calasiao — P8,000.00 — Date: Nov. 18, 1998
- Check No. 0050260, Prime Bank, Calasiao — P8,500.00 — Date: Nov. 16, 1998
- Check No. 0050266, Prime Bank, Calasiao — P8,500.00 — Date: Nov. 16, 1998
- Check No. 0050267, Prime Bank, Calasiao — P8,500.00 — Date: Nov. 16, 1998
- Check No. 0050256, Prime Bank, Calasiao — P7,000.00 — Date: Nov. 12, 1998
- Check No. 0050257, Prime Bank, Calasiao — P5,000.00 — Date: Nov. 12, 1998
- Check No. 0050255, Prime Bank, Calasiao — P8,000.00 — Date: Nov. 12, 1998
- Check No. 0050258, Prime Bank, Calasiao — P5,000.00 — Date: Nov. 10, 1998
- Check No. 0050259, Prime Bank, Calasiao — P5,000.00 — Date: Nov. 10, 1998
- Aggregate total of the checks: P103,500.00.
Defendant’s Plea and Principal Defenses
- Batac pleaded not guilty when arraigned.
- Her defenses included:
- Assertion that it was Erlinda who issued and delivered the checks to Frias for rediscounting and that Batac had never met nor transacted business with Frias.
- Argument that the claimed proceeds still amounted to P103,500.00 despite an alleged 5% rediscounting fee, which, in Batac’s view, casts doubt on whether a rediscounting transaction actually occurred.
- Claim that if any criminal liability existed, it would be for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. Blg. 22, the Bouncing Checks Law), not estafa.
Trial Court Decision (RTC)
- The RTC found Batac guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal for estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code.
- Dispositive sentencing by the RTC (as quoted in the source):
- Indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 2 years, 10 months and 21 days of arresto mayor as minimum and 12 years of prision mayor as maximum.
- Ordered Batac to reimburse private complainant Roger Frias the amount of PhP103,500.00 with interest computed from the date of the decision.
Court of Appeals Decision
- The CA affirmed Batac’s conviction, finding that the prosecution established all elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(d).
- The CA reasoned Batac’s representations that the checks were funded induced Frias to buy them; Batac’s knowledge of insufficiency was established by her express admission.
- The CA modified the penalty imposed by the RTC. Dispositive portion (as quoted in the source) imposed:
- Indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum to 14 years, 8 months and 21 days of reclusion temporal as maximum.
- Ordered restitution: Batac to pay Roger L. Frias Php103,500.00 plus six percent (6%) interest per annum from the filing of the case (25 March 1999) up to the time the CA Decision becomes final and executory; thereafter, amount due to earn 12% per annum until satisfied.
- No pronouncement as to costs.
Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court
- Whether Batac’s petition (raising principally that Erlinda, not Batac, issued the checks) presented a question of law or a factual issue reviewable by the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
- Whether the elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(d) were proven beyond reasonable doubt against Batac.
- Whether Batac’s liability, if any, should be limited to a violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (bouncing checks) rather than estafa.
- Whether the penalty and interest awarded by the CA required modification in light of legislative amendments (R.A. No. 10951) and jurisprudential guidance.
Standard of Review on Questions of Fact and Exceptions
- The Court reiterated that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45; if resolution requires review of evidence, the question is factual.
- The Court acknowledged settled exceptions to the rule (citing Pascual v. Burgos, Medina v. Mayor Asistio Jr.), listing the exceptions as set forth in the source, includ