Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dyvs.People
by filling up the blanks therein. And a signature on a blank paper
delivered by the person making the signature in order that the paper
may be converted into a negotiable instrument operates as a prima
facie authority to fill it up as such for any amount. . (Emphasis
supplied.) Hence, the law merely requires that the instrument be in
the possession of a person other than the drawer or maker. From such
possession, together with the fact that the instrument is wanting in a
material particular, the law presumes agency to fill up the blanks.
Because of this, the burden of proving want of authority or that the
authority granted was exceeded, is placed on the person questioning
such authority. Petitioner failed to fulfill this requirement.
Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Deceit as an element of
estafa is a specie of fraudit is actual fraud which consists in any
misrepresentation or contrivance where a person deludes another, to
his hurt.We are not swayed by petitioners arguments that the
single incident of dishonor and his absence when the checks were
delivered belie fraud. Indeed damage and deceit are essential
elements of the offense and must be established with satisfactory
proof to warrant conviction. Deceit as an element of estafa is a specie
of fraud. It is actual fraud which consists in any misrepresentation or
contrivance where a person deludes another, to his hurt. There is
deceit when one is misledby guile, trickery or by other meansto
believe as true what is really false.
Same; Same; Same; Uncollected deposits are not the same as
insufficient fundsthe prima facie presumption of deceit arises only
when a check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds;
Clearly, the estafa punished under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the
Revised Penal Code is committed when a check is dishonored for being
drawn against insufficient funds or closed account, and not against
uncollected deposit.The same, however, does not hold true with
respect to FEBTC Check No. 553602 for P106,579.60. This check was
dishonored for the reason that it was drawn against uncollected
deposit. Petitioner had P160,659.39 in his savings deposit account
ledger as of July 22, 1992. We disagree with the conclusion of the RTC
Page 1 of 11
Dyvs.People
Same; Same; Estafa; What the law punishes is simply the
issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was
issued nor the terms and conditions relating theretothe only valid
query, then, is whether the law has been breached, i.e., by the mere act
of issuing a bad check, without so much regard as to the criminal
intent of the issuer.During the joint pre-trial conference of this case,
Dy admitted that he issued the checks, and that the signatures
appearing on them were his. The facts reveal that the checks were
issued in blank because of the uncertainty of the volume of products
to be retrieved, the discount that can be availed of, and the deduction
for bad orders. Nevertheless, we must stress that what the law
punishes is simply the issuance of a bouncing check and not the
purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating
thereto. If inquiry into the reason for which the checks are issued, or
the terms and conditions of their issuance is required, the publics
faith in the stability and commercial value of checks as currency
substitutes will certainly erode. Moreover, the gravamen of the offense
under B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making or issuing a worthless check or
a check that is dishonored upon presentment for payment. The act
effectively declares the offense to be one of malum prohibitum. The
only valid query, then, is whether the law has been breached, i.e., by
the mere act of issuing a bad check, without so much regard as to the
criminal intent of the issuer. Indeed, non-fulfillment of the obligation
is immaterial. Thus, petitioners defense of failure of consideration
must likewise fall. This is especially so since as stated above, Dy has
acknowledged receipt of the goods.
Same; Same; To be liable under Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22, the
check must be dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds
or credit or dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer,
without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.In Tan v.
People, 349 SCRA 777 (2001), this Court acquitted the petitioner
therein who was indicted under B.P. Blg. 22, upon a check which was
dishonored for the reason DAUD, among others. We observed that: In
the second place, even without relying on the credit line, petitioners
Page 2 of 11
Dyvs.People
Dyvs.People
and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines with
business address at No. 531 Gen. Luis St., Novaliches, this City, in
the following manner, to wit: the said accused, by means of false
manifestations and fraudulent representation which he made to
complainant to the effect that Far East Bank and Trust Co. check No.
553602 dated July 22, 1992 in the amount of P106,579.60, payable to
W.L. Products is a good check and will be honored by the bank on its
maturity date, and by means of other deceit of similar import,
induced and succeeded in inducing the said complainant to receive
and accept the aforesaid check in payment of snack foods, the said
accused knowing fully well that all his manifestations and
representations were false and untrue and were made solely for the
purpose of obtaining, as in fact he did obtain the aforesaid snack foods
valued at P106,579.60 from said complainant as upon presentation of
said check to the bank for payment, the same was dishonored and
payment thereof refused for the reason stop payment and the said
accused, once in possession of the aforesaid snack foods, with intent to
defraud, [willfully], unlawfully and feloniously misapplied,
misappropriated and converted the same or the value thereof to his
own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said
W.L. Products, herein represented by RODOLFO BORJAL, in the
aforementioned amount of P106,579.60, Philippine Currency.
Contrary to law.
7
Page 4 of 11
Dyvs.People
FINALLY, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of private
complainant, W. L. Food Products, herein represented by Rodolfo
Borjal, and against herein accused JOHN JERRY DY ALDEN (JOHN
DY), ordering the latter to pay to the former the total sum of
P333,373.96 plus interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annumfrom
September 28, 1992 until fully paid; and, (2) the costs of this suit.
SO ORDERED.
9
Page 5 of 11
10
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS
PROVEN THE GUILT OF ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT OF ESTAFA ON TWO (2) COUNTS?
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS
PROVEN THE GUILT OF ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT OF VIOLATION OF BP 22 ON TWO (2) COUNTS?
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
GRAVELY ERRED IN AWARDING DAMAGES TO PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT, W.L. FOOD PRODUCTS, THE TOTAL SUM OF
[P]333,373.96?
11
Dyvs.People
Dyvs.People
Page 7 of 11
Dyvs.People
Dyvs.People
To be liable under Section 140 of B.P. Blg. 22, the check must
be dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
credit or dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer,
without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.
In the instant case, even though the check which petitioner
deposited on July 20, 1992 became good only five (5) days later,
he was considered by the bank to retroactively have had
P160,659.39 in his account on July 22, 1992. This was more
than enough to cover the check he issued to respondent in
the amount of P106,579.60. Under the circumstance obtaining
in this case, we find the petitioner had issued the check,
with full ability to abide by his commitment 41 to pay his
purchases.
Dyvs.People
Dyvs.People
for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, but is ordered to pay W.L. Foods the
amount of P106,579.60, while Criminal Case No. Q-93-46713
affirmed with modification and Criminal Case No. 93-46714
affirmed.
Notes.B.P. Blg. 22 does not appear to concern itself with
what might actually be envisioned by the parties, its primordial
intention being to instead ensure the stability and commercial
value of checks as being vital substitutes for currency. (Meriz
vs. People, 368 SCRA 524 [2001])
Conviction for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 imports deceit and
certainly relates to and affects the good moral character of a
persona drawer who issues an unfunded check deliberately
reneges on his private duties he owes his fellow men or society
in a manner contrary to accepted and customary rule of right
and duty, justice, honesty or good morals. (Villaber vs.
Commission on Elections, 369 SCRA 126 [2001])
o0o
Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
Page 11 of 11