Case Summary (G.R. No. L-45490)
Applicable Law
The relevant law applicable here is Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, specifically the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 4885 and Presidential Decree No. 818, which address the offense of estafa by means of the issuance of bad checks.
Case Summaries
The cases under review arose from three separate incidents:
Ranulfo M. Salazar issued a postdated check in payment of a lease obligation for the "Tanguili Night Club," which was later dishonored due to insufficient funds. The City Court of Cagayan de Oro granted a motion to quash the information for estafa on the grounds that the check was issued for a pre-existing obligation.
Tan Tao Liap borrowed money from Ngo Cheng and issued checks as repayments. The third check issued was dishonored, leading to his conviction for estafa. The Court of Appeals affirmed this conviction, which Liap now contests.
Daylinda A. Lagua issued a postdated check for goods purchased on credit. The check was dishonored, leading to her indictment for estafa. Lagua contended in her motion to dismiss that the check was issued for a pre-existing obligation, which should not constitute estafa.
Core Legal Issues
The primary issue in all three cases revolves around whether the issuance of a postdated check that bounces due to insufficient funds amounts to estafa, particularly when the check is intended for a pre-existing debt. This question leads to the examination of the definitions of deceit and damage in the context of estafa.
Legal Analysis
According to Article 315, para. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, to establish estafa through check issuance, the following elements must exist:
- Issuance of a check in payment of an obligation.
- The drawer had no funds or insufficient funds to cover the check at the time of issuance.
- Damage to the payee arose.
The court noted that previously, under the law, if a check was issued for a pre-existing obligation, this did not constitute estafa because the deceit (the act of writing a bad check) was viewed as occurring simultaneously with the underlying transaction. However, amendments to the law have shifted this perspective, allowing for the presumption of deceit if the drawer fails to cover the check within three days of it being dishonored.
Conclusions from Judicial Review
G.R. No. L-45490 - The City Court acted within its jurisdiction when it quashed the estafa charge against Salazar, determining that the nature of check issuance intended as payment for a pre-existing obligation does not constitute estafa as there is no deceit involved in the actual payment.
G.R. No. L-45711 - The Court of Appeals was found to have erred as it upheld the conviction of Liap for estafa. Since Liap’s transaction was structured similarly—issuing a check for a prior debt—the conviction was overturned, leading to his acquittal.
G.R. No. L-42971 - The lower court's decision to deny Lagua's motion to quash was upheld, highlighting that Lagua’s issuance of the check, which was subse
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-45490)
Overview of the Cases
- This syllabus covers three cases decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on November 20, 1978, focusing on the issue of whether the issuance of a postdated check, subsequently dishonored for insufficient funds, constitutes estafa (swindling) under Philippine law.
- The cases are:
- G.R. No. L-45490: People of the Philippines vs. Ranulfo Salazar
- G.R. No. L-45711: Tan Tao Liap vs. Court of Appeals
- G.R. No. L-42971: Daylinda A. Lagua vs. Hon. Vicente M. Cusi, Jr., et al.
Background of G.R. No. L-45490
- Ranulfo Salazar leased the "Tanguili Night Club" for a monthly rental of P2,000.
- On May 23, 1976, Salazar issued a postdated check for P1,500 (Check No. C179-4555) to Ramon Yap, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds.
- The City Court of Cagayan de Oro quashed the estafa information against Salazar on January 6, 1977, ruling that the issuance of a check in payment of a pre-existing obligation did not constitute estafa.
- The petitioner contended that the court's ruling was erroneous and sought to nullify the order.
Background of G.R. No. L-45711
- Tan Tao Liap borrowed a total of P9,000 from Ngo Cheng, with checks issued to repay the debt.
- Liap informed Cheng he could not pay the remaining checks due to business reverses and proposed staggered payments instead.
- Cheng, dissatisfied, filed criminal charges against Liap for estafa regarding a dishonored check (No. 7-442562) for P3,500.
- The City Court convicted Liap of estafa despite the check being issued to settle a pre-exi