[G.R. No.

133645 September 17, 2002]

People v Dinglasan
TOPIC: Estafa
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee vs. Alexander Dinglasan, accused-appellant.
Ponente: Quisumbing, J.
Legal Action: Appeal for the judgment of the Pasig City RTC which found Alexander Dinglasan guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Estafa defined and penalized under Article 315, (2) (d) and sentenced him 20 years and 1
day of reclusion perpetua as minimum, to 28 years also of reclusion perpetua as maximum and ordered him to
pay Charles Q. Sia actual damages of Php104,160.00.
Facts:

Cast:
o

Alexander Dinglasan owns and operates Alexander Transport (Manila-Bicol route) that went
bankrupt during the pendency of case

Charles Sia owns Schanika Enterprises that retails nylon tires

On July 1994 at Mandaluyong City, Dinglasan issued and delivered 3 BDO post dated checks (Check
No. 029020 - Php38,760 - July 24, 1995; Check No. 029021 - Php26,400 - July 25, 1994; Check No.
029014 Php39,000 July 30, 1994) to Sia for the purchase of tires without disclosing that at the time
Dingalsan has no funds in the bank. Checks were then presented for payment to drawee bank and
were dishonored due to Drawn Against Insufficient Funds. 3 days lapsed from receipt of notice of
dishonor but Dinglasan refused to make full payment of Php104,160. Sia, with the help of a lawyer, sent
a demand letter but all he got were promises.

Dinglasan did not deny issuance of checks but denied intent to deceive/defraud. He refused to pay due
to the poor quality of tires that would burst even when the buses were not moving causing disruptions in
operations which ultimately led to the bankruptcy of his company.

Issue

WN/ the
appellants guilt
has been proven
with moral
certainty.

Hel
d
NO

Ratio

BP 22 - failure of drawer to deposit the amount necessary to cover his checks

within 3 days is prima facie evidence of fraud and deceit. Art 315 RPC mere
failure to make such deposit cant be the basis for conviction if the
surrounding circumstances tend to show the absence of bad faith/deceit.
(People v Singson)

It is only with respect to Check No. 029021, postdated September 25, 1994,
which was issued in payment of the purchase made on July 25, 1994 that the

correct date of the corresponding transaction is alleged in the information and

supported by the prosecutions evidence. Date is a material ingredient in
Estafa. Date must be specifically and particularly alleged in information and
proven as alleged.

W/N the penalty

imposed is proper.

Ye
s

Dinglasans admission failed to rebut prima facie presumption of deceit

constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.

Neither reclusion perpetua nor life imprisonment is involved.

Decision: RTC judgment MODIFIED. Guilty of 1 count of Estafa. 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as min
and 20 years of reclusion temporal as max.
Notes: Accused were initially indicted for robbery with multiple rape under Art 294 par 1. There was no
sufficient evidence that the accused were the ones who divested the victim of her money and valuables. She
did not know which of them took her gold ring, bracelet and cash. Proof of conspiracy is also absent
convicted of one count of rape each.