Case Summary (G.R. No. 194410)
Facts: Purchases and Dishonored Checks
From early 1994 to May 1995, Garcia procured assorted vegetables from Dolores S. Apolonio, paying in cash. Between June and August 1995, she instead issued three postdated checks totaling ₱87,000—drawn on accounts of her husband, daughter and nephew—which were dishonored for insufficient funds. Apolonio filed estafa charges against Garcia.
Trial Court Conviction and Sentence
The RTC found Garcia guilty of estafa by deceit under Art. 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, ruling that she falsely represented the checks as funded. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, it imposed an indeterminate sentence of six years and one day to ten years and one day of prision mayor, ordered indemnification of ₱87,000, and awarded costs.
Issues on Appeal
Garcia’s petition for review asserts that:
- She was charged under Art. 315(2)(a) but convicted under Art. 315(2)(d).
- She did not issue or draw the checks and lacked knowledge of insufficient funds.
- The checks discharged a preexisting obligation, making her liability civil only.
- Her right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation was violated.
Constitutional Right to Be Informed and Information Requirements
Under the 1987 Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 14[2]) and RRCP Rule 110, Sections 6 and 8, an information must allege every essential fact and correctly designate the statute. The designation in the caption is secondary to the factual averments, which determine the true nature of the offense.
Elements of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a)
- Fraud by deceit or false pretenses executed prior to or simultaneously with the fraud.
- Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation to the offended party.
Elements of Estafa under Article 315(2)(d)
- Issuance or postdating of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time.
- Lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check.
- Damage to the payee.
Analysis of the Information and Typographical Discrepancy
The information explicitly charged Garcia under Art. 315(2)(a), alleging she falsely guaranteed the checks were funded when presented as payment for vegetables. A clerical error in the trial court’s dispositive referring to Section 2(d) did not alter the body’s consistent citation of Section 2(a).
Deceit and Knowledge: Body of Trial Court’s Decision
The RTC found that Garcia knowingly misled Apolonio by assuring the checks belonged to solvent relatives. The postdating itself supported an inference that the drawers lacked sufficient funds at the time of negotiation, satisfying the element of knowledge.
Consideration of Alternative Estafa Theory under Paragraph 2(d)
Addressing Garcia’s claim that she merely negotiated third-party checks, the trial court invoked precedent (People v. Isleta) holding that a negotiator personally aware of insufficient funds is guilty of estafa.
General Concept of Fraud and Deceit
Fraud encompasses any device to deceive, including false suggestions, suppression of truth, or breach of confidence, resulting in damage. Deceit is a species of fraud sufficient to establish estafa when pecuniary harm occurs.
Court of Appeals’ Findings on Scheme to Defraud
The CA affirmed that Garcia orchestrated a scheme to obtain vegetables without payment by using bad checks, knew of her relatives’ inadequate funds, and failed to cure the dishonored checks, confirming her bad faith.
Applicable Penalty and Sentencing Framework
Under Art. 315(2)(a), estafa exceeding ₱22,000 carries prisi
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 194410)
Facts of the Case
- For more than a year prior to 1995, petitioner Yolanda Garcia regularly purchased assorted vegetables from Dolores S. Apolonio in Divisoria, Manila, always paying in cash.
- In May to August 1995, petitioner acquired vegetables on three occasions by tendering postdated checks instead of cash.
- The checks, all dishonored for “Drawn Against Insufficient Funds,” were:
• Phil. Nat’l Bank Check No. 046884 for P28,000.00 (postdated June 20, 1995; drawn by Manuel Garcia, petitioner’s husband)
• Pilipinas Bank Check No. 60042087 for P25,000.00 (postdated July 25, 1995; drawn by Jose Nadongga Jr., petitioner’s nephew)
• Phil. Nat’l Bank Check No. 047416 for P34,000.00 (postdated August 15, 1995; drawn by Gigi Garcia, petitioner’s daughter) - When presented for payment, all three checks bounced. Apolonio then filed an estafa complaint, alleging a total loss of P87,000.00.
Procedural History
- Regional Trial Court (Branch 43, Manila), in a December 29, 1998 Decision, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced her to prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 10 years and 1 day), to indemnify P87,000.00, and to pay costs.
- Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR No. 22771). On August 30, 2000, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision in toto.
- Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. 144785), raising several assignments of error regarding the nature of the charge, the applicable penal provision, her knowledge of the checks’ insufficiency, and the proper characterization of her liability.
Issues Presented
- Whether petitioner’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation was violated by charging under Article 315(2)(a) but convicting under Article 315(2)(d).
- Whether petitioner, who did not personally issue or draw the checks, could be convicted of estafa under Article 315(2)(d).
- Whether there was evidence of petitioner’s knowledge that the postdated checks were unfunded.
- Whether the transaction, being payment of a pre-existing obligation, gave rise only to