People Vs Cuyugan

9/21/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 392
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Cuyugan
*
G.R. Nos. 14664143. November 18, 2002.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs.

RICA G. CUYUGAN, accusedappellant.
Criminal Law; Estafa; Evidence; Generally, findings and

conclusions of the trial court are binding.—Generally, findings
and conclusions of the trial court are binding upon us in the
absence of a clear showing of arbitrariness or palpable error or
unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and
value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.
Same; Same; Elements; The Prosecution did not prove the
existence of fraud to constitute the issuance of the check as fraud
contemplated by the law on estafa.—We agree with the OSG that
the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving beyond
reasonable doubt that the offense
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
141
VOL. 392, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 141
People vs. Cuyugan
of estafa as defined by the Revised Penal Code in Article 315, 2

(d), was committed by the appellant. More particularly, the
prosecution did not prove the existence of fraud to constitute the
issuance of the check as fraud contemplated by the law on estafa.
As we previously held: To constitute estafa under this provision
the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an
obligation must be the efficient cause of defraudation, and as such
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea2da5ab2928a6c53003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/13
it should be either prior to, or simultaneous with the act of fraud.

The offender must be able to obtain money or property from the
offended party because of the issuance of a check whether
postdated or not. That is, the latter would not have parted with
his money or other property were it not for the issuance of the
check.
Same; Same; Same; Appellant cannot be convicted of a crime
for which she was not properly charged.—Appellant cannot be
convicted of a crime for which she was not properly charged, for
that would violate appellant’s constitutional right to be informed
of the accusation against her. The purpose of the constitutional
guarantee that a person accused of an offense be informed of the
accusation against him is (a) to furnish the accused with such a
description of the charge against him as will enable him to make
his defense; (b) to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal, for
protection against a further prosecution for the same cause; and
(c) to inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide
whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one
should be had.
Same; Same; Same; BP 22 cannot be deemed necessarily
included in the crime of estafa under RPC, Article 315, 2(d).—BP
22 cannot be deemed necessarily included in the crime of estafa
under RPC, Article 315, 2 (d). The offense of fraud defined under
the Revised Penal Code is malum in se, whereas BP 22, also
known as Bouncing Checks Law, is a special law which punishes
the issuance of bouncing checks, a malum prohibitum. Fraud or
estafa under the Revised Penal Code is a distinct offense from the
violation of the Bouncing Checks Law. They are different offenses,
having different elements.
APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Pasay City, Br. 117.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for plaintiffappellee.
Antonio R. Bautista & Partners for accused
appellant.
142

People vs. Cuyugan
QUISUMBING, J.:
1
On appeal is the joint decision dated December 20, 2000, of
the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 117, in
Criminal Cases Nos. 957580, 957581 and 957582 for
three counts of estafa as defined and penalized under

Article 315, paragraph 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code. The
trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
on each count of estafa and sentenced her pursuant to P.D.
No. 818 to imprisonment of 30 years of reclusion perpetua,
and to pay the sum of P172,000 as indemnity in Criminal
Case No. 957580; imprisonment of 30 years of reclusion
perpetua, and payment of P172,000 as indemnity in
Criminal Case No. 957581; and imprisonment of 30 years
of reclusion perpetua and payment of P86,000 as indemnity
in Criminal Case No. 957582. Appellant was charged
under separate informations, which read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 957580:
“That on or about the 18th day of May 1994, in Pasay City, Metro
Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court the abovenamed accused, Rica G. Cuyugan, defrauded and
deceived private Complainant Norma Abagat in the following
manner to wit: that said accused with intent to defraud and well
knowing that her account with the bank was already closed, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, make out and
issue to private Complainant the following checks:
FEBTC Date Amount

Check No.
1. 03A058536P 062594 P360,000.00
2. 03A058546P 072294 36,000.00
in the total amount of P396,000.00 simultaneous with the

receipt by the accused of cash money from private Complainant
also in the total amount of P396,000.00 but which checks when
presented to the drawee bank on their maturity dates were
promptly dishonored for reasons of “Account Closed” and
notwithstanding demands made on her, accused failed and
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 2736.
143
VOL. 392, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 143

People vs. Cuyugan
refused and still fails to redeem or make good the said check’s face
value thereof, to the damage and prejudice of the private
Complainant in the total
2
aforesaid amount of P396,000.00.
Contrary to Law.”
“That on or about the 25th day of May 1994, in Pasay City,

Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court the abovenamed accused, Rica G. Cuyugan,
defrauded and deceived private Complainants Rodrigo and Norma
Abagat in the following manner to wit: that said accused with
intent to defraud and well knowing that her account with the
bank was already closed, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously make out and issue to private Complainants the
following checks:
FEBTC Date Amount

Check No.
1. 03A058480P 072594 P300,000.00
2. 03A059550P 081394 9,000.00
in the total amount of P309,000.00 simultaneous with the

receipt by the accused of cash money from private Complainants
Rodrigo and Norma Abagat, respectively, valued in the total
amount of P309,000.00 but which checks when presented to the
drawee bank on their maturity dates were promptly dishonored
for reasons of “Account Closed” and notwithstanding demands
made on her, accused failed and refused and still fails to redeem
or make good the said check’s face value thereof, to the damage
and prejudice of the private Complainants in the total aforesaid
amount of P309,000.00.
3
Contrary to Law.”
“That on or about the 12th day of May 1994, in Pasay City,

Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused defrauded and
deceived private Complainant Norma Abagat in the following
manner to wit: that the accused with intent to defraud and well
knowing that her account with the bank has no
_______________
2 Id., at 11.
3 Id., at 13.
144

People vs. Cuyugan
sufficient funds, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously make out

and issue to the private Complainant Far East Bank and Trust
Company Check No. 03A058532P postdated June 10, 1994 in the
amount of P150,000.00 simultaneous with, for and in
consideration of cash money from private Complainant in the
total amount of P150,000.00 but which check when presented to
the drawee bank on maturity date was promptly dishonored for
reason of “Drawn Against Insufficient Funds” (DAIF) and
notwithstanding demands on her, accused failed and refused and
still fails and refuses to redeem or make good the said check or its
value, to the damage and prejudice of the private Complainant in
the total aforesaid amount
4
of P150,000.00.
Contrary to Law.”
Inasmuch as the three cases are interrelated, involving the

same parties and similar causes of action, they were
consolidated.
On October 18, 1995 appellant was arraigned, and with
the assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty. A joint trial
on the merits ensued thereafter.
The prosecution presented complaining witnesses,
Rodrigo Abagat and Norma David Abagat.
RODRIGO ABAGAT testified that he is engaged in the
business of supplying dry goods, such as materials for
building construction as well as communication parts, to
the Philippine Air Force. In the morning of May 10, 1994,
he narrated that he was at the Villamor Airbase together
with his wife, Norma David Abagat, and appellant Rica
Cuyugan. He and his wife met with appellant at the
Villamor Golf Club to discuss the matter of appellant’s dire
need for money on account of the supplies
5
she wanted to
buy for the Philippine Armed Forces. He said that they
gave appellant, on staggered basis, the amount totaling to
P855,000. They agreed to give her the amount provided
that appellant would
6
issue checks to cover the value of the
money given her.
When the checks were presented for payment, they were
all dishonored either on account of DAIF (drawn against
insufficient
_______________
4 Id., at 15.
5 TSN, July 17, 1996, pp. 48.
6 Id., at 9.
145
VOL. 392, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 145

People vs. Cuyugan
7
funds) or for reason of ACCOUNT CLOSED. He forthwith
informed appellant of the dishonor of the 8checks by sending
her a demand letter on January 12, 1995. Despite repeated
demands, appellant failed to make good the checks, which
constrained the Abagat spouses to file in May 1995 a
complaint for estafa against appellant. It was only then
that they filed the complaint as they gave appellant
9
an
opportunity to settle her obligations to no avail.
On crossexamination, Rodrigo admitted that appellant
is a family friend and is in fact related by affinity to his
wife. He likewise admitted that he received from appellant
the sum
10
of P100,000 applied against the check drawn in his
favor.
NORMA DAVID ABAGAT substantially corroborated
the testimony of her husband. She accompanied her
husband when he met with appellant and witnessed the
exchange of money and checks between them.
On crossexamination Norma admitted that the checks
issued by appellant
11
were mere guarantees for the return of
their money.
The defense presented appellant RICA G. CUYUGAN.
She testified that she is a businesswoman who furnished
the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) with office
supplies, construction materials, and signal and
communication spare parts. She had been engaged in this
business since 1977. She affirmed that her husband
12
is the
cousin of private complainant Norma Abagat.
Appellant stated that it was Norma Abagat who
requested that the Abagats participate in the big supply
project for the Philippine Army. The Abagat spouses gave
her P150,000 which represented the P135,000 principal as
partner for that construction project with the Philippine
Army and the 13
remaining P15,000 representing the 10%
profit share. In return, she issued a postdated check
covering
_______________
7 Id., at 2021.
8 Id., at 23.
9 Id., at 2627.
10 TSN, August 14, 1996, pp. 2728.
11 TSN, March 29, 2000, p. 41.
12 TSN, May 19, 2000, p. 5.
13 Id., at 78.
146

People vs. Cuyugan
the P150,000 as proof 14that the Abagat spouses had invested

their money with her.
She claimed that she was the industrial partner as she
did all the legwork in getting the projects. They then
shared in the profits after deducting all the miscellaneous
expenses.
She issued another postdated check worth P360,000 in
exchange for the P270,000 that Norma Abagat gave her,
less expenses and profit share. She also issued another
check for P36,000 representing
15
interest for four months at
P9,000 per month. On account of another deal she closed
with the Philippine Army, she issued to Norma another
check worth P300,000 as the latter’s share in said 16
deal, and
a check worth P9,000 as interest for the former.
Appellant made payments to the Abagat spouses by
depositing the total amount of P575,000 in the latter’s bank
account17 with Maybank (formerly Philippine Republic
Bank).
She further testified on crossexamination that when the
checks bounced, she issued four replacement checks18in the
sala of the trial judge but these checks also bounced.
ADELARDO GUEVARRA, bank account analyst at
Maybank Philippines, Villamor Airbase branch, testified
that as part of his duties and functions 19he posted and
recorded deposit accounts and withdrawals. He claimed to
be familiar with the Maybank account of Rodrigo Abagat
and that deposits were made in said account20
but he had no
knowledge who deposited these amounts.
LT. COL. RAMOS L. AQUINO, Logistics Supply Officer
of the Philippine Army, was the final witness for the
defense. He testified that he knew appellant quite well and
the latter had introduced him to Norma Abagat who owned
NDA Trading. He also affirmed
_______________
14 Id., at 11.
15 Id., at 18.
16 Rollo, p. 32.
17 TSN, May 19, 2000, pp. 2223.
18 Rollo, p. 33.
19 TSN, June 28, 2000, pp. 4, 67.
20 Supra note 18 at 33.
147
VOL. 392, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 147

People vs. Cuyugan
that appellant dealt with the Philippine

21
Army in supplying
it with materials for certain projects.
The trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of estafa committed by means of false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud, that is by postdating a check
or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the
offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited
therein22
were not sufficient to cover the amount of the
check.
Hence this appeal where appellant assigns the lone
error that:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED

APPELLANT RICA G. CUYUGAN GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT OF THREE (3) COUNTS OF ESTAFA.
The issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting

appellant for three counts of estafa and sentencing her
pursuant to Article 315, 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code as
amended by P.D. No. 818.
Appellant contends that the agreement entered into by
her and the Abagat spouses was for a partnership
transaction for the supply of materials for the Armed
Forces. She further asserts that the Abagat spouses had
known her for a long time and had previous business
dealings with her. It was actually on account of her good
credit standing that they were convinced to become her
partners. She issued the subject checks as mere
guarantees, according to appellant, hence they were
postdated.
Incidentally, appellant also assails the penalty imposed
by the trial court on the ground that it violates the
constitutional provision on cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment. Considering that this appeal could be decided
on other grounds, however, we need not now pursue the
issue of unconstitutionality of P.D. No. 818, which amended
Article 315, 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, as earlier
amended by R.A. No. 4885.
For the appellee, the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) states that although appellant incurred criminal
liability, she should only
_______________
21 Ibid.
22 Article 315, 2 (d), Revised Penal Code.
148

People vs. Cuyugan
be penalized for violation of BP 22 and not for estafa

because the prosecution failed to establish fraud. According
to the OSG, contrary to appellant’s claim that the sum of
P855,000 given to her by the Abagat spouses represented
the latter’s investment in a supposed partnership, the
evidence clearly established that the P855,000 was a loan
extended by the spouses to appellant. However, the
prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt fraud
or bad faith on the part of appellant in issuing the
postdated checks.
We find the appeal meritorious.
Generally, findings and conclusion of the trial court are
binding upon us in the absence 23
of a clear showing of
arbitrariness or palpable error or unless it has plainly
overlooked certain facts of substance and value 24
that, if
considered, might affect the result of the case.
We agree with the OSG that the prosecution failed to
discharge its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt
that the offense of estafa as defined by the Revised Penal
Code in Article 315, 2 (d), was committed by the appellant.
More particularly, the prosecution did not prove the
existence of fraud to constitute the issuance of the check as
fraud contemplated by the law on estafa. As we previously
held:
To constitute estafa under this provision the act of postdating or

issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient
cause of defraudation, and as such it should be either prior to, or
simultaneous with the act of fraud. The offender must be able to
obtain money or property from the offended party because of the
issuance of a check whether postdated or not. That is, the latter
would not have parted with his 25money or other property were it
not for the issuance of the check.
In this case, the trial court failed to consider the

testimonies of both the private complainants with respect
to the agreement that the checks issued by appellant shall

be mere guarantees for the eventual payment of the money
given to appellant.
_______________
23 See People vs. Molina, et al., 292 SCRA 742, 765 (1998).
24 People vs. Laceste, et al., 293 SCRA 397, 407 (1998).
25 Vallarta vs. Court of Appeals, 150 SCRA 336, 340 (1987).
149
VOL. 392, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 149

People vs. Cuyugan
As aptly pointed out by the OSG, Norma Abagat admitted

on crossexamination that the checks that appellant
26
issued
merely guaranteed the payment of the loan. Rodrigo
Abagat likewise admitted as much and even testified on
crossexamination that he intended to impose 27a monthly
interest at the rate of 5% on the amount lent. The OSG
observed that it was not the issuance of the checks that
prompted the Abagat spouses to part with their money but
rather, the liberality to help appellant who is the wife of
Norma’s cousin, as well as the expectation to collect
interest payment for the loan extended to appellant.
The transaction between appellant and the Abagat
spouses, in our view, was one for a loan of money to be used
by appellant in her business and she issued checks to
guarantee the payment of the loan. As such, she has the
obligation to make good the payment of the money
borrowed by her. But such obligation is civil in character
and in the absence of fraud, no criminal liability under the
Revised Penal Code arises from the mere issuance of
postdated checks as a guarantee of repayment. We find
appellant’s allegation, that the Abagat spouses entered into
a joint venture agreement with her for the supply of
materials with the AFP, is selfserving. But we also note
that the trial court convicted appellant on a general
allegation that all the elements of estafa under Article 315,
2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code had been proved by the
prosecution without making any reference to or giving any
proof of the actual fraud that appellant allegedly
committed to make her liable for estafa. It is elementary
that where an allegation in the information is an essential
element of the crime, the same must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction. In this case, the
prosecution did not establish specifically and conclusively

the fraud alleged as an element of the offenses charged.
Considering that the informations against appellant
involved violation of Art. 315, 2 (d) of the Revised Penal 28
Code, we take exception to the OSG’s recommendation
that appellant should be held liable for violations of BP 22.
Appellant cannot be convicted of
_______________
26 Rollo, p. 116.
27 Id., at 111.
28 Memorandum for PlaintiffAppellee, Rollo, pp. 114115.
150

People vs. Cuyugan
a crime for which she was not properly charged, for that
would violate appellant’s constitutional 29
right to be
informed of the accusation against her. The purpose of the
constitutional guarantee that a person accused of an
offense be informed of the accusation against him is (a) to
furnish the accused with such a description of the charge
against him as will enable him to make his defense; (b) to
avail himself of his conviction or acquittal, for protection
against a further prosecution for the same cause; and (c) to
inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide
whether they are sufficient
30
in law to support a conviction,
if one should be had.
The informations filed with the regional trial court were
for three counts of estafa. Earlier, the informations for BP
22 covering the same checks filed with the Metropolitan
Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 31
44, were provisionally
dismissed on November 13, 1996. These cases were not re
filed nor consolidated with the informations for estafa
before the RTC of Pasay. Accordingly, appellant was never
apprised of the fact that she may still be held liable for BP
22 and so never had an opportunity to defend herself
against an accusation for an offense under the special law.
BP 22 cannot be deemed necessarily included in the crime
of estafa under RPC, Article 315, 2 (d). The offense of fraud
defined under the Revised Penal Code is malum in se,
whereas BP 22, also known as Bouncing Checks Law, is a
special law which punishes the issuance of bouncing
checks, a malum prohibitum. Fraud or estafa under the
Revised Penal Code is a distinct offense from the violation
of the Bouncing Checks Law.

32
They are different offenses,
having different elements. In this case, since appellant is
accused of violating a particular provision of the Revised
Penal Code on estafa, she may not be convicted for violation
of BP 22 without trenching on fundamental fairness.
_______________
29 Article III, Sec. 14 (2), 1987 Constitution.

30 People vs. Manalili, et al., 294 SCRA 220, 258 (1998); citing US vs.
Karelsen, 3 Phil. 223, 226 (1904).
31 Records, Annex “F” of Comment to Appellee’s Brief. Cf People vs.
Chua, 315 SCRA 327 (1999).
32 Uy vs. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 367, 375 (1997).
151
VOL. 392, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 151

People vs. Cuyugan
The trial court found sufficient evidence that appellant

already paid the amount of P425,000 out of her total
indebtedness of P855,000. Apparently, appellant made a
belated effort to make good her obligation. Be that as it
may, there is a remaining balance of her obligation in the
amount of P430,000 as the difference between P855,000
less P425,000. This amount of P430,000 should be paid by
appellant as a just obligation owing to the spouses Rodrigo
and Norma Abagat. In addition, interest of 12 percent per 33
annum, to be computed in accordance with Article 1169,
should also be paid by her. For where the debtor incurs in
delay, he has to pay interest by way of damages, in
conformity with our 34ruling in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc.
vs. Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the judgment dated December 20, 2000,
of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 117, in
Criminal Cases Nos. 957580, 957581, and 957582 finding
appellant RICA G. CUYUGAN, liable for three counts of
estafa is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant is
ACQUITTED, for lack of sufficient evidence to prove fraud
beyond reasonable doubt. However, she is ordered to pay
private complainants the balance of her obligation in the
amount of P430,000 plus interest of twelve percent (12%)
per annum until fully paid. She is hereby ordered
RELEASED immediately from confinement in the
Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City,
unless she is being held for another lawful cause. The
Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to inform
the Court of the action taken hereon within five days from
notice.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza and Callejo, Sr.,

JJ., concur.
AustriaMartinez, J., On leave.
_______________
33 Art. 1169, Civil Code:
Those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from the time the obligee
judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation.
xxx
34 234 SCRA 78, 95 (1994).
152

People vs. Amante
Judgment reversed and set aside, accusedappellant

acquitted and ordered released.
Note.—Unlike in estafa, under B.P. 22, one need not

prove that the check was issued in payment of an
obligation, or that there was damage. (Lim vs. People, 340
SCRA 497 [2000])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

People Vs Cuyugan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Cuyugan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/21/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 392

140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff­appellee, vs.

Criminal Law; Estafa; Evidence; Generally, findings and

VOL. 392, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 141

People vs. Cuyugan

of estafa as defined by the Revised Penal Code in Article 315, 2

it should be either prior to, or simultaneous with the act of fraud.

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

three counts of estafa as defined and penalized under

Criminal Case No. 95­7580:

FEBTC Date Amount

in the total amount of P396,000.00 simultaneous with the

1 Rollo, pp. 27­36.

VOL. 392, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 143

Criminal Case No. 95­7581:

“That on or about the 25th day of May 1994, in Pasay City,

FEBTC Date Amount

in the total amount of P309,000.00 simultaneous with the

Criminal Case No. 95­7582:

“That on or about the 12th day of May 1994, in Pasay City,

144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

sufficient funds, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously make out

Inasmuch as the three cases are interrelated, involving the

VOL. 392, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 145

People vs. Cuyugan

146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the P150,000 as proof 14that the Abagat spouses had invested

20 Supra note 18 at 33.

VOL. 392, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 147

that appellant dealt with the Philippine

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED

The issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting

liability, she should only

148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

be penalized for violation of BP 22 and not for estafa

To constitute estafa under this provision the act of postdating or

In this case, the trial court failed to consider the

to the agreement that the checks issued by appellant shall

VOL. 392, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 149

As aptly pointed out by the OSG, Norma Abagat admitted

prosecution did not establish specifically and conclusively

150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

of the Bouncing Checks Law.

29 Article III, Sec. 14 (2), 1987 Constitution.

VOL. 392, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 151

The trial court found sufficient evidence that appellant

Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza and Callejo, Sr.,

33 Art. 1169, Civil Code:

34 234 SCRA 78, 95 (1994).

152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Judgment reversed and set aside, accused­appellant

Note.—Unlike in estafa, under B.P. 22, one need not

You might also like

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs.

Criminal Case No. 957580:

1 Rollo, pp. 2736.

Criminal Case No. 957581:

Criminal Case No. 957582:

Judgment reversed and set aside, accusedappellant