G.R. No. 191622 - Batac vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191622)

Facts of the Case

On November 8, 1998, Iluminada Batac and Erlinda Cabardo visited Roger Frias’ store to have several post-dated checks rediscounted. Batac assured Frias that the checks were hers and properly funded, persuading him to buy fourteen checks at a rediscounted rate of five percent. Batac signed the checks in Frias’ presence. When Frias attempted to deposit the checks on their respective due dates at Prime Bank, Calasiao Branch, all were dishonored with the reason “Account Closed.” Frias demanded payment from Batac, giving her five days to settle the amount, but she failed to pay, resulting in the filing of the estafa case. Batac denied involvement, claiming that Erlinda issued and delivered the checks without her knowledge. She further asserted that if liable, she could only be held accountable under B.P. Blg. 22 for bouncing checks, not estafa.

Trial Court Decision

The Regional Trial Court found Batac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the RPC. The court sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty of 2 years, 10 months, and 21 days of arresto mayor as minimum, up to 12 years of prision mayor as maximum, and ordered her to pay Roger Frias PhP103,500.00 plus interest.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision, finding the elements of estafa proven: Batac knowingly issued post-dated checks without sufficient funds and induced Frias to accept them at a rediscounted rate, resulting in his prejudice. The CA modified the penalty to imprisonment of an indeterminate period ranging from 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum to 14 years, 8 months, and 21 days of reclusion temporal as maximum. It ordered restitution of PhP103,500.00 with six percent interest per annum from the filing of the case, increasing to twelve percent after the decision's finality.

Issues on Appeal and Standard of Review

Batac, through a petition for review under Rule 45, contended that it was Erlinda who issued the checks, thus denying her criminal liability for estafa. The Supreme Court emphasized that petitions for review on certiorari generally raise questions of law and not factual issues, such as the identity of the offender. Factual findings are binding if supported by evidence unless exceptional circumstances exist, which Batac failed to demonstrate here. The Court thus deferred to the factual findings of the RTC and CA that Batac was identified by credible and corroborated witness testimony as the issuer of the checks.

Elements of Estafa under Article 315, Paragraph 2(d) RPC

The crime requires:

Issuance or postdating of a check in payment of an obligation at the time of issuance.
The issuer has insufficient funds in the bank to cover the amount.
The payee is defrauded as a result of the issuance.

The Court clarified that estafa is predicated on deceit, not merely failure to pay. The check must have been the inducement for the payee to part with money or property and cannot be in payment of a pre-existing obligation.

Application of Evidence to the Case

The prosecution sufficiently proved Batac’s deceit by showing she induced Frias to buy the checks under the false representation that she had adequate funds. Batac’s own admission that her account had only a little over one thousand pesos when the checks were issued confirmed her knowledge of insufficient funds. Her failure to pay within the grant period further established fraud and damage to Frias. The Court found no merit in Batac’s claim that the case should be only for bouncing checks under B.P. Blg. 22, explaining that estafa and B.P. Blg. 22 are distinct offenses with differing elements, penalties, and social ramifications. Estafa requires deceit and damage, which were proven here.

Distinction Between Estafa and Bouncing Checks Law

The Court distinguished estafa from violation of B.P. Blg. 22, highlighting:

Estafa requires deceit and damage; B.P. Blg. 22 punishes mere issuance of dishonored checks without sufficient funds.
B.P. Blg. 22 applies even to checks issued for pre-existing obligations; estafa does not.
Penalties and nature of offenses differ: estafa is mala in se (inherently wrongful), whereas B.P. Blg. 22 violations are mala prohibita (prohibited acts).
Estafa is a crime against property; B.P. Blg. 22 primarily protects the banking system and public interest.

On the Argument Regarding Rediscounting Fee

Batac argued that Frias’ claim for the full amount of checks, without deducting the rediscounting fee of 5%, casts doubt on the transaction’s validity. The Court ruled this argument inconsequential. Frias expected to receive the aggregate amount stated in the checks as a result of Batac's deceit; the rediscounting fee was a separate matter that did not negate the proof o

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 191622)

Case Background and Procedural History

Petitioner Iluminada Batac filed a petition for review under Rule 45 assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) decision dated November 6, 2009.
The CA affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) finding that Batac was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by R.A. No. 4885.
Batac was charged for issuing post-dated checks to private complainant Roger L. Frias, knowing she had no sufficient funds to cover the checks.
The checks issued amounted to a total of P103,500.00 and were presented for encashment but were returned unpaid due to "Account Closed."
Batac pleaded not guilty and after trial, the RTC convicted her of estafa. The CA affirmed but modified the penalty.

Facts of the Case

On November 8, 1998, Batac and Erlinda Cabardo went to Frias’s store to have checks rediscounted.
Batac assured Frias the checks were hers and funded, persuading Frias to buy 14 checks at a 5% rediscounted rate.
Batac signed the checks in Frias's presence.
Upon presentation to the drawee bank (Prime Bank, Calasiao Branch), all checks were dishonored for "Account Closed."
Frias demanded payment from Batac, giving her 5 days to pay, which she failed to do.
Batac maintained that Erlinda, not she, issued and delivered the checks and that she never transacted with Frias.
Batac also argued inconsistencies regarding the rediscounting fee that raised doubts about the transaction's reality.
The RTC found Batac guilty of estafa, imposing imprisonment and ordering reimbursement with interest.
The CA affirmed the decision but modified the penalty and ordered restitution with a 6% annual interest rate from case filing.

Issues Presented

Whether or not Iluminada Batac was the person who issued and delivered the checks and defrauded Frias.
Whether her conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the RPC was supported by evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether Batac’s liability for estafa should be downgraded to a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law).
Proper penalty and computation of interest on the award.

Court’s Analysis on Factual Issues and Evidence

The Court emphasized that only questions of law are reviewable in petitions for certiorari; factual issues such as Batac’s identity as issuer are binding if affirmed by lower courts.
Both RTC and CA credibly accepted Frias’s testimony that Batac represented herself as the drawer of the checks and signed them in his presence.
Witness Ivy Luna Frias corroborated Frias’s account.
Batac’s defense was mere denial without substantial basis.
The Court asserted that positive, credible identification overcomes defense of denial or alibi.
Batac’s identity as the party who issued and delivered the checks was conclusively established.

Elements of Estafa Under Article 315, Paragraph 2(d) RPC

The Court reiterated the established elements proving estafa by issuing a check without suffic