G.R. Nos. 59568-76 January 11, 1990 PETER NIERRAS, petitioner, vs. HON. AU EN!IO !. "A!U#!U# an$ HON.

ANTONIO S. %OPE&, 'n ()*'r +a,a+'(y as Pr*s'$'n- Ju$-*, .ran+) I/, !our( o0 1'rs( Ins(an+* o0 %*y(*, Pa2o, %*y(*, an$ !'(y 1's+a2 o0 Ta+2o3an !'(y, %*y(*, r*s,*+('4*2y, respondents. Victor C. Veloso for petitioner.

PARAS, J.: Before Us is a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction for the annulment of the resolution dated September 17, 1981 of the respondent ud!e "u#encio $. %acuycuy in nine &9' criminal cases, entitled ()eople of the )hilippines v. )eter *ierras( doc+eted as $riminal $ases *os. ,-79, ,-8., ,-81, ,-8/, ,-8-, ,-8,, ,-80, ,-81 and ,-87, for estafa under "rticle -10 &/2d' of the 3evised )enal $ode which denied petitioner4s motion to 5uash. Said motion to 5uash was filed by petitioner on the !round of double jeopardy as these offenses were already included in $riminal $ases *os. -79., -791, -79/, -79-, ,.80, ,1//, ,1/-, ,1/,, and ,1/0, entitled ()eople of the )hilippines v. )eter *ierras,( for violation of the Bouncin! $hec+s 6aw or Batas )ambansa Bl!. //, pendin! before the lower court. 7n both sets of criminal cases, petitioner entered a plea of not !uilty upon arrai!nment before the lower court. 8owever, immediately after his plea of not !uilty in these estafa cases, petitioner moved in open court to be allowed to withdraw his plea of not !uilty upon his filin! of a motion to 5uash, which was denied by respondent ud!e rulin! as follows9 :he motion to 5uash should be and is hereby denied. "ccused )eter *ierras alle!edly issued the chec+s in favor of complainant )ilipinas Shell )etroleum $orporation in payment of oil products which the latter delivered to him simultaneously with the issuance of the chec+s. ### ### ### . . . :he crime of estafa committed by means of bouncin! chec+s is not committed by mere issuance of a chec+. Under "rt. -10, par. / &d' of the 3evised )enal $ode, as amended by 3epublic "ct ,880, the followin! are the elements of estafa9 &1' the postdatin! or issuance of a chec+ in payment of an obli!ation contracted at the time the chec+ was issued; &/' lac+ of or insufficiency of funds to cover the chec+; and &-' dama!e to the payee thereof &)eople v. Sabio, 81 S$3" 018'. Under Batas )ambansa Bilan! // &1979' the mere issuance of a chec+ without sufficient funds issued in payment of a simultaneous obli!ation and the chec+ was dishonored upon presentation for that estafa is committed under the 3evised )enal $ode. "t the same time, the drawer will also be liable under Batas )ambansa Bilan! // for offense of issuin! a chec+ without sufficient funds &pp. 12/, 3esolution <n =otion :o >uash dated September 17, 1981; "nne# (==(, )etition'. &p. 1.., Rollo' :he issue now submitted for <ur consideration is whether the filin! of the nine &9' other informations for estafa a!ainst petitioner under the 3evised )enal $ode after he had earlier been char!ed with violation of Batas )ambansa Bl!. // for issuin! the same bouncin! chec+s will put him in jeopardy of bein! convicted twice for the same offenses. 7n other words, can petitioner be held liable for the nine criminal cases for violation of Batas )ambansa Bl!. //, and separately also be held liable for the crime of estafa under "rticle -10 &/2d' of the 3evised )enal $ode for the issuance of the same bouncin! chec+s? 7t appears that petitioner, a customer of )ilipinas Shell )etroleum $orporation, purchased oil products from it. Simultaneous with the delivery of the products, he issued nine &9' chec+s in payment thereof. Upon presentation to the )hilippine *ational Ban+ at *aval, 6eyte, said chec+s were dishonored for the reason that his account was already closed. :hereafter, )ilipinas Shell )etroleum $orporation repeatedly demanded of petitioner either to deposit funds for his chec+s or pay for the oil products he had purchased but he failed and refused to do either. )etitioner ar!ues that he would be placed in double jeopardy as all the elements of estafa under "rticle -10 &/2d' of the 3evised )enal $ode are also present in that crime punishable under Batas )ambansa Bilan! // namely &1' (the postdatin! or issuance of a chec+ in payment of an obli!ation contracted at the time the chec+ was issued; &/' lac+ or insufficiency of funds to cover the chec+ and &-' dama!e to the payee thereof.( )etitioner4s contentions are devoid of merit. )etitioner is char!ed with two &/' distinct and separate offenses, first under Section 1 of Batas )ambansa Bilan! // approved on "pril -, 1979 which provides that9 "ny person who ma+es or draws and issues any chec+ to apply on account or for value, +nowin! at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee ban+ for the payment of such chec+ in full upon its presentment, which chec+ is subse5uently dishonored by the drawee ban+ for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason ordered the ban+ to stop payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one &1' year or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the chec+ which fine shall in no case e#ceed :@< 8U*%3A% :8<US"*% )AS<S or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. and, second, under "rticle -10, &/2d' of the 3evised )enal $ode which states as follows9 "rt. -10. Swindling (estafa). "ny person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below . . . ### ### ### /. By means of any of the followin! false pretenses or fraudulent acts, e#ecuted prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; ### ### ### &d' By postdatin! a chec+ or issuin! a chec+ in payment of an obli!ation when the offender had no funds in the ban+, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the chec+.

@hat petitioner failed to mention in his ar!ument is the fact that deceit and dama!e are essential elements in "rticle -10 &/2d' 3evised )enal $ode, but are not re5uired in Batas )ambansa Bilan! //. Under the latter law, mere issuance of a chec+ that is dishonored !ives rise to the presumption of +nowled!e on the part of the drawer that he issued the same without sufficient funds and hence punishable &)eople v. Beridiano, 1-/ S$3" 0/-' which is not so under the )enal $ode. <ther differences between the two also include the followin!9 &1' a drawer of a dishonored chec+ may be convicted under Batas )ambansa Bilan! // even if he had issued the same for apre2existing obli!ation, while under "rticle -10 &/2d' of the 3evised )enal $ode such circumstance ne!ates criminal liability; &/' specific and different penalties are imposed in each of the two offenses; &-' estafa is essentially a crime a!ainst property, while violation of Batas )ambansa Bilan! // is principally a crime a!ainst public interest as it does injury to the entire ban+in! system; &,' violations of "rticle -10 of the 3evised )enal $ode are mala in se, while those of Batas )ambansa Bilan! // are mala prohibita. :hese differences are better understood by presentin! the pertinent discussions on the passa!e of Batas )ambansa Bilan! // between the author of the bill, former Solicitor Ceneral and =ember of the Batasan! )ambansa, the 8onorable Astelito ). =endoDa, presented in the memorandum for the !overnment as follows9 =3. =A*%<E". If there is evidence demonstrating that the act committed does not only violate this proposed ct but also the Revised !enal Code" there will be further prosecution under the Revised !enal Code. :hat is why it is proposed in this "ct that there be a sin!le uniform penalty for all violations in this "ct. 8owever the court is !iven the discretion whether to impose imprisonment or fine or both or also in whatever severity the court may consider appropriate under the circumstances. ### ### ### =3. BA6<S<, F. :he other way around, it is not so. So precisely, if 7 file a case for estafa a!ainst a particular person for issuance of a bouncin! chec+, then necessarily 7 can also be prosecuted under this proposed bill. <n the other hand, if a person is prosecuted under the proposed bill, it does not necessarily follow that he can be prosecuted for estafa. =3. =A*%<E". :his is simply because that in a certain set of circumstances, the offense under this "ct is the only offense committed while under a different set of circumstances, not only the offense described in this "ct is committed but also estafa. So that, for e#ample, if a chec+ with sufficient funds is issued in payment of a pre2e#istin! obli!ation and the position of the Covernment should turn out to be correct that there is no estafa, then the drawer of the chec+ would only be liable under this "ct but not under the 3evised )enal $ode. But if he issues a chec+ in payment, or contemporaneously with incurrin!, of an obli!ation, then he will be liable not only for estafa but also for violation for this "ct. :here is a difference between the two cases. 7n that situation where the chec+ was issued in payment of a pre2e#istin! obli!ation, the issuance of the chec+ does not cause dama!e to the payee and so it is but appropriate that he should not be held for estafa but only for violatin! this "ct. #ut if he issued a chec$ to induce another, to part with a valuable consideration and the chec+ bounces, then he does inflict an in%ury to the payee of the chec$ apart from violating this law. 7n that case, it should be but fair that he be subject to prosecution not only for estafa but also for violatin! this law. =3. BA6<S<, F. Ges, 7 a!ree with the Solicitor Ceneral on that point but my worry is with respect to situations where there is prosecution first to estafa. =3. =A*%<E". @ell, if there is estafa . . . =3. BA6<S<, F. Astafa committed by the issuance of a bouncin! chec+, in which case it will be mandatory on the part of the prosecutin! official to also file a case for violation of this offense under the proposed bill. =3. =A*%<E". Ges, that is correct. In such a situation because if the offender did not only cause in%ury on account of the issuance of the chec$ but did issue a bouncing chec$ penali&ed under this ct" then he will be liable for prosecution under both laws. 7 would admit that perhaps in such situation, the penalty may be somewhat severe. "s a matter of fact, in other jurisdictions, the issuance of bouncin! chec+s is penaliDed with substantially lower penalty. 8owever, because of the situation in the )hilippines, the situation bein! now relatively !rave that practically everybody is complainin! about bouncin! chec+s, may be it is necessary at least initially, at this point in time for us to impose a rather severe penalty and even allow liability not only under this "ct but also for estafa. :hen perhaps, after the necessary discipline has been inculcated in our people and that the incidence of the offense has been reduced, we may then decide to amend the law and reduce the penalty. But at this time, shall we say the evil is of such ma!nitude that only a dramatic and e#peditious effort to prosecute persons who issue bouncin! chec+s may be necessary to curb 5uic+ly this evil. &e#planations !iven by Solicitor Ceneral AS:A67:< ). =A*%<E" at the Batasan )ambansa durin! his sponsorship speech of B) // which he authored, pa!es 1.-721.-8, 3ecord of the Batasan, )lenary Session *o. 7., %ec. ,, 1978'. &Amphasis supplied'. &pp. 1102117,Rollo or pp. 9211, =emorandum for respondents'. Furthermore, Section 0 of Batas )ambansa Bilan! // provides that9 )rosecution under this "ct shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the 3evised )enal $ode. @hile the filin! of the two sets of 7nformation under the provisions of Batas )ambansa Bilan! // and under the provisions of the 3evised )enal $ode, as amended, on estafa, may refer to identical acts committed by petitioner, the prosecution thereof cannot be limited to one offense, because a sin!le criminal act may !ive rise to a multiplicity of offenses and where there is variance or differences between the elements of an offense in one law and another law as in the case at bar there will be no double jeopardy because what the rule on double jeopardy prohibits refers to identity of elements in the two &/' offenses. <therwise stated prosecution for the same act is not prohibited. @hat is forbidden is prosecution for the same offense. 8ence, the mere filin! of the two &/' sets of information does not itself !ive rise to double jeopardy &)eople v. =iraflores, 110 S$3" 07.'. 7n the instant petition, certiorari is not the proper remedy. @e have held in charon v. !urisima" et al. &1- S$3" -.9' that (when a motion to 5uash a criminal case is denied, remedy is not certiorari but to !o to court without prejudice to reiteratin! special defenses invo+ed in the motion, and if after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authoriDed

by law,( invo+in! the rule laid down in !eople v.'agdaluyo &1 S$3" 99.'. 7f the petitioner cannot appeal at this state of the proceedin!, it is because there is still a necessity for the trial on the merits wherein the parties may present proofs in support of their contentions and not because the remedy of appeal is unavailin!. @8A3AF<3A, premises considered, the petition for certiorari is hereby %7S=7SSA% for lac+ of merit. S< <3%A3A%. (arvasa" 'elencio)*errera" +utierre&" ,r." Cru&" -eliciano" +ancayco" !adilla" #idin" Sarmiento" Cortes" +ri.o) /uino" 'edialdea and Regalado" ,,." concur. -ernan" C.,." too$ no part.

.R. Nos. 105678-58. Jun* 7, 60058

PEOP%E O1 THE PHI%IPPINES, appellee, vs. !ORA A.E%%A OJE"A, appellant. "E!ISION !ORONA, J.: For review is the decisionH1I dated une /1, 1991 of the 3e!ional :rial $ourt of =anila, Branch -8, the dispositive portion of which

read9

@8A3AF<3A, the $ourt finds accused $ora "bella <jeda !uilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Astafa as defined and penaliDed under para!raph /&d' of "rticle -10 of the 3evised )enal $ode, as amended by 3ep. "ct ,880, in $riminal $ase *o. 882 11//8 and hereby sentences her to suffer a penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the accessories provided by law and with credit for preventive imprisonment under!one, if any, in accordance with "rticle /9 of the 3evised )enal $ode as amended, and to pay complainant 3uby $hua the amount of :wo 8undred :wenty Ai!ht :housand :hree 8undred Si# &)//8,-.1...' )esos with interests thereon from the time of demand until fully paid. 6i+ewise, the $ourt also finds the said accused !uilty for Biolation of Batas )ambansa Bl!. // in $riminal $ases *os. 88211/-., 882 11/-/, 88211/-0 to 88211/,., 88211/,/, 88211/,-, 882 11/,0 to 88211/,8 &1,' counts and hereby sentences her to suffer a penalty of one year of imprisonment for each count. <n the other hand, the other char!es doc+eted as $riminal $ases *os. 882 11//9, 882 11/-1, 88211/--, 88211/-,, 88211/,1 and 88211/,, are hereby dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. $osts a!ainst accused in all instances.H/I "ppellant $ora "bella <jeda was char!ed in /1 separate 7nformations for estafa in $riminal $ase *o. 88211//8 and for violation of Batas )ambansa &B)' // in $riminal $ase *os. 88211//9 to 88211/,8. :he 7nformation char!in! <jeda with estafa read9 :hat on or about the first wee+ of *ovember, 198-, in the $ity of =anila, )hilippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud 3UBG $8U" in the followin! manner, to wit9 the said accused, well +nowin! that she did not have sufficient funds in the ban+ and without informin! the said 3uby $hua of such fact drew, made out and issued to the latter the followin! post2dated 3iDal $ommercial Ban+in! $orporation chec+s, to wit9 $hec+ *o. 1. .--00. /. .,178/ -. .,/9-0 ,. .,1799 0. .--0-. 1. .,171, 7. .,/9,/ 8. .,1789. .,18.. 1.. .,1788 11. .--0/9 1/. .,178, 1-. .,/9.1 1,. .,/9./ 10. .,1780 11. .,/9.17. .--0-/ 18. .,1781 19. .,/9.0 /.. .,-.., /1. .,/9.7 //. .,/9.1 %ate *ov. *ov. *ov. *ov. *ov. *ov. *ov. *ov. *ov. *ov. *ov. *ov. *ov. *ov. *ov. *ov. *ov. *ov. %ec. %ec. %ec. %ec. 0, 1980, 1981, 1989, 1981., 1981., 1981., 1981/, 1981,, 19810, 19810, 19818, 19818, 198/-, 198/0, 198/9, 198/9, 198-., 1988, 1981., 19810, 19818, 198"mount )17,1..... 0,-9/.-, 1,8,..19 11,90-.-8 19,,-7.-, /1, 89.... 1,9,1.09 0,-9/.-, 11,90-.-9 -,.81.9. 19,,-7.-, 0,-9/.-, 11,90-.-8 11,90-.-8 0,-9/.-, 11,90-.-8 1-,1.-.// 0,-9/.-, 11,90-.-9 /,-81./0 11,90-.-8 11,90-.-9

)//8,-.1.1.

in payment of various fabrics and te#tile materials all in the total amount of )//8,-.1.1. which the said accused ordered or purchased from the said 3UBG $8U" on the same day; that upon presentation of the said chec+s to the ban+ for payment, the same were dishonored and payment thereof refused for the reason J"ccount $losedK, and said accused, notwithstandin! due notice to her by the said 3uby $hua of such dishonor of the said chec+s, failed and refused and still fails and refuses to deposit the necessary amount to cover the amount of the chec+s to the dama!e and prejudice of the said 3UBG $8U" in the aforesaid amount of )//8,-.1.1., )hilippine currency.

$ontrary to law. :he 7nformations char!in! <jeda for violation of B) // were similarly worded e#cept for the amounts of the chec+s, the chec+ numbers and the dates of the chec+s9 :hat on or about the first wee+ of *ovember 198-, in the $ity of =anila, )hilippines, the said accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously ma+e or draw and issue to 3UBG $8U" to apply on account or for value 3iDal $ommercial Ban+in! $orp. $hec+ *o. .,178, dated *ovember 18, 198- payable to 3uby $hua in the amount of )0,-9/.-,, said accused well +nowin! that at the time of issue heLsheLthey did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee ban+ or payment of such chec+ in full upon its presentment, which chec+, when presented for payment within ninety &9.' days from the date thereof was subse5uently dishonored by the drawee ban+ for insufficiency of funds, and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor, said accused failed to pay said complainant the amount of said chec+ or to ma+e arran!ement for full payment of the same within five &0' ban+in! days after receivin! said notice. $ontrary to law. :he pertinent facts of the case follow. "ppellant $ora "bella <jeda used to buy fabrics &telas' from complainant 3uby $hua. For the three years appro#imately she transacted business with $hua, appellant used postdated chec+s to pay for the fabrics she bou!ht. <n *ovember 0, 198-, appellant purchased from $hua various fabrics and te#tile materials worth )//8,-.1 for which she issued // postdated chec+s bearin! different dates and amounts. $hua later presented to the ban+ for payment chec+ no. .--00. dated *ovember 0, 198- in the amount of )17,1..H-I but it was dishonored due to M"ccount $losed.NH,I <n "pril 1., 198,, $hua deposited the rest of the chec+s but all were dishonored for the same reason.H0I %emands were alle!edly made on the appellant to ma+e !ood the dishonored chec+s, to no avail. Astafa and B) // char!es were thereafter filed a!ainst appellant. :he criminal cases were consolidated and appellant, on arrai!nment, pleaded not !uilty to each of the char!es. <n the whole, appellantKs defense was !rounded on !ood faith or absence of deceit, lac+ of notice of dishonor and full payment of the total amount of the chec+s. @ith the e#ception of si# chec+sH1I which did not bear her si!nature, appellant admitted that she issued the postdated chec+s which were the subject of the criminal cases a!ainst her. She, however, alle!ed that she told $hua not to deposit the postdated chec+s on maturity as they were not yet sufficiently funded. "ppellant also claimed that she made partial payments to $hua in the form of finished !arments worth )0.,.... :his was not rebutted by the prosecution. :he trial court convicted appellant of the crime of estafa as defined and penaliDed under para!raph /&d' of "rticle -10 of the 3evised )enal $ode &3)$', and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua. :he trial court also convicted appellant of violation of B) // for issuin! bouncin! chec+s. 8owever, the court a /uo held her !uilty of only 1, counts out of the // bouncin! chec+s issued. :he court reasoned9 ### :his is due to the fact that of the // chec+s, two of them are not covered by the indictment. :his refers to $hec+ *o. .,/9-0 dated *ovember 1, 198- in the amount of )1,8,..19 &A#hibit %' and $hec+ *o. .,/9,/ dated *ovember 1., 198- in the amount of )1,9,1.09 &A#hibit F'. "nd of the total number of chec+s, si# of them were not si!ned by the accused but by the latterKs husband &A#hibits $,8, ,=,3 and <'. :he accused should not be liable for the issuance of the 1 chec+s in the absence of any showin! of conspiracy.H7I "ppellant appealed to this $ourt, see+in! ac5uittal. 8er counsel, however, failed to file the appellantKs brief within the prescribed period. 8er appeal was thus dismissed in a resolution of this $ourt dated <ctober 1,, 199/.H8I 7n her motion for reconsideration, appellant as+ed this $ourt to reverse its order of dismissal in the interest of substantial justice and e5uity.H9I@e initially found no compellin! reason to !rant her motion and resolved to deny with finality appellantKs =3 in a resolution dated February -, 199-.H1.I "ppellant thereafter filed a MSecond and Ur!ent =otion for 3econsideration,N attachin! thereto an M"ffidavit of %esistanceN of complainant 3uby $hua which stated in part9 ### ### ###.

/. that the defendant =rs. $ora <jeda has already fully paid her monetary obli!ation to me in the amount of )//8,-.1... which is the subject of the aforementioned cases; ### ### ###.

0. :hat as the private complainant, 7 am now appealin! to the sense of compassion and humanity of the !ood justices of the Supreme $ourt to reconsider the appeal of =rs. $ora <jeda and 7 solemnly pray that the criminal liability be e#tin!uished with her civil liability.
H11I

7n a resolution dated =arch 17, 199-, H1/I this $ourt denied the second =3 for havin! been filed without leave of court. 7n the same resolution, this $ourt ordered the entry of jud!ment in due course. "ppellant thereafter filed another motion dated "pril /1, 199-, prayin! that she be recommended to then )resident Fidel B. 3amos for e#ecutive clemency. 7n support of such motion, she once more attached the affidavit of desistance H1-I of complainant 3uby $hua which cate!orically declared that Mthe defendant, =s. $ora <jeda, &had' already fully paid her monetary obli!ations to &$hua' in the amount of)//8,-.1 which &was' the subject of the aforementioned cases.NH1,I 7n view of such special circumstances, this $ourt issued a resolution dated une 9, 199-H10I recallin! its resolutions dated <ctober 1,, 199/, February -, 199- and =arch 17, 199- for humanitarian reasons and in the interest of justice, and in order that this $ourt may resolve appellantKs appeal on the merits.H11I 8ence, the instant appeal with the followin! assi!nments of error9 I. :8A 6<@A3 $<U3: A33A% 7* F7*%7*C :8": %A$A7: @"S A=)6<GA% BG "$$USA% "))A66"*: @8A* S8A 7SSUA% :8A $8A$OS :< :8A )37B":A $<=)6"7*"*:. II.

:8A 6<@A3 $<U3: A33A% 7* *<: F7*%7*C :8": :8A 7SSU"*$A BG :8A "$$USA%2"))A66"*: <F :8A $8A$OS :< :8A )37B":A $<=)6"7*"*: @"S =A3A6G " =<%A <F )"G=A*: @87$8 "33"*CA=A*: 8"% BAA* :8A73 )3"$:7$A F<3 :83AA &-' GA"3S. III. :8A 6<@A3 $<U3: A33A% 7* *<: F7*%7*C :8": C<<% F"7:8 7S " B"67% %AFA*SA "C"7*S: AS:"F" BG )<S:%":7*C " $8A$O I/. :8A 6<@A3 $<U3: A33A% 7* $<*B7$:7*C :8A "$$USA% <F F<U3:AA* &1,' $<U*:S <F B.). // @8A* :8A3A @"S *< )3<<F <F *<:7$A <F %7S8<*<3 :< :8A "$$USA%. /. :8A 6<@A3 $<U3: A33A% 7* *<: F7*%7*C :8": S7*$A 1- <F :8A 1, $8A$OS @A3A %A)<S7:A% <*6G "F:A3 :8A 6")SA <F :8A 9. %"G )A37<%, 8A*$A, :8A )37=" F"$7A )3ASU=):7<* <F O*<@6A%CA %<AS *<: "))6G.H17I "ppellant firmly denies any criminal liability for estafa. She ar!ues there was no deceit employed when she issued the chec+s because she never assured $hua that the chec+s were funded. $hua alle!edly +new all alon! that the chec+s were merely intended to !uarantee future payment by appellant. "ppellant further claims !ood faith in all her transactions with $hua for three years. She e#plained that her failure to fund the chec+s was brou!ht about by the collapse of the countryKs economy in the wa+e of the "5uino assassination in 198-. :he capital fli!ht and financial chaos at that time caused her own business to shut down when her customers also failed to pay her. %espite the closure of her business, appellant maintains that she did her best to continue payin! $hua what she owed and, when she could no lon!er pay in cash, she instead paid in +ind in the form of finished !oods. But these were not enou!h to cover her debts. *evertheless, she spared no effort in complyin! with her financial obli!ations to $hua until she was !radually able to pay all her debts, a fact fully admitted as true by complainant in her affidavit. From the fore!oin!, appellant contends that the element of deceit thru abuse of confidence or false pretenses was not present. :hus, her !uilt was not established with satisfactory proof. "ppellant asserts that !ood faith on her part was a valid defense to rebut the prima faciepresumption of deceit when she issued the chec+s that subse5uently bounced. Furthermore, out of the 1, chec+s cited in the decision of the trial court, only one chec+ was deposited within 9. days from due date. :his was chec+ no. .--00. dated *ovember 0, 198-. :he rest of the chec+s were deposited only on "pril 1., 198, or more than 9. days from the date of the last chec+.H18I "ppellant also denies she received any notice of dishonor of the chec+s, contrary to the findin!s of the trial court. She was not even aware that cases had already been filed a!ainst her for violation of B) //. Since there was alle!edly no proof of noticeH19I of the dishonor of the chec+s, appellant claims that she cannot be convicted of violation of B) //. <n the other hand, the Solicitor Ceneral contends that appellant was criminally liable for issuin! worthless chec+s. $omplainant $hua accepted the postdated chec+s as payment because of appellantKs !ood credit standin!. She was confident that appellantKs chec+s were !ood chec+s. :hus, no assurances from appellant that the chec+s were sufficiently funded were needed for $hua to part with her !oods. "nd when the chec+s later bounced, appellant betrayed the confidence reposed in her by $hua. :he Solicitor Ceneral also ar!ues that there was a simultaneous e#chan!e of te#tile materials and chec+s between complainant and appellant. $omplainant $hua would not have parted with her telas had she +nown that appellantKs chec+s would not clear. "ppellant obtained somethin! in e#chan!e for her worthless chec+s. @hen she issued them, she +new she had no funds to bac+ up those chec+s because her account had already been closed. Get, she did not inform $hua that the chec+s could not be cashed upon maturity. She thus deceived $hua into partin! with her !oods and the deceit employed constituted estafa. @e !rant the appeal.

"E!EIT AN" "A9AGE AS E%E9ENTS O1 ESTA1A

Under para!raph / &d' of "rticle -10 of the 3)$, as amended by 3" ,880, H/.I the elements of estafa are9 &1' a chec+ is postdated or issued in payment of an obli!ation contracted at the time it is issued; &/' lac+ or insufficiency of funds to cover the chec+; &-' dama!e to the payee thereof. %eceit and dama!e are essential elements of the offense and must be established by satisfactory proof to warrant conviction.H/1I :hus, the drawer of the dishonored chec+ is !iven three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to cover the amount of the chec+. <therwise aprima facie presumption of deceit arises. :he prosecution failed to prove deceit in this case. :he prima facie presumption of deceit was successfully rebutted by appellantKs evidence of !ood faith, a defense in estafa by postdatin! a chec+.H//I Cood faith may be demonstrated, for instance, by a debtorKs offer to arran!e a payment scheme with his creditor. 7n this case, the debtor not only made arran!ements for payment; as complainant herself cate!orically stated, the debtor2appellant fully paid the entire amount of the dishonored chec+s. 7t must be noted that our 3evised )enal $ode was enacted to penaliDe unlawful acts accompanied by evil intent denominated as crimesmala in se. :he principal consideration is the e#istence of malicious intent. :here is a concurrence of freedom, intelli!ence and intent which to!ether ma+e up the Mcriminal mindN behind the Mcriminal act.N :hus, to constitute a crime, the act must, !enerally and in most cases, be accompanied by a criminal intent. ctus non facit reum" nisi mens sit rea. *o crime is committed if the mind of the person performin! the act complained of is innocent. "s we held in 0abuena vs. Sandiganbayan9H/-I :he rule was reiterated in !eople v. !acana, althou!h this case involved falsification of public documents and estafa9 M<rdinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime. no crime when the criminal mind is wantin!.N ctus non facit reum" nisi mens sit rea. :here can be

"merican jurisprudence echoes the same principle. 7t adheres to the view that criminal intent in embeDDlement is not based on technical mista+es as to the le!al effect of a transaction honestly entered into, and there can be no embeDDlement if the mind of the person doin! the act is innocent or if there is no wron!ful purpose. :he accused may thus prove that he acted in !ood faith and that he had no intention to convert the money or !oods for his personal benefit.H/,I @e are convinced that appellant was able to prove the absence of criminal intent in her transactions with

$hua. 8ad her intention been tainted with malice and deceit, appellant would not have e#erted e#traordinary effort to pay the complainant, !iven her own business and financial reverses.

%A!: O1 NOTI!E O1 "ISHONOR

@e also note that the prosecution presented virtually no evidence to show that the indispensable notice of dishonor was sent to and received by appellant. A#cerpts from the followin! testimony of complainant are si!nificant9 "::G. "*CA6AS9 > " *ow, =rs. @itness, when these chec+s from A#hibits J"K to JBK have bounced, what steps, did you do? 7 consulted my lawyer and she wrote a %emand 6etter.

$<U3:9 > " @hat is the name of that lawyer? "tty. Bir!inia *abora.

"::G. "*CA6AS9 > " > " *ow, you mentioned a %emand 6etter sent by "tty. Bir!inia *abor, 7 am showin! to you this %emand 6etter dated =arch 11, 1988, will you +indly e#amine the same if this is the same %emand 6etter you mentioned a while a!o? Ges, sir. *ow, on this second pa!e of this %emand 6etter there is a si!nature above the printed name Bir!inia Cuevarra *abor, do you +now the si!nature, =rs. @itness? Ges, that is the si!nature of my lawyer.

"::G. "*CA6AS9 =ay we re5uest that this %emand 6etter dated =arch 11, 1988 consistin! of two &/' pa!es, Gour 8onor, be mar+ed as A#hibit J@K and that the si!nature on the second pa!e of this letter of Bir!inia Cuevarra *abor be encircled and be mar+ed as A#hibit J@21K and that the attached 3e!istry 3eceipt, Gour 8onor, be mar+ed as A#hibit J@2/K. $<U3:9 =ar+ them. "::G. "*CA6AS9 > " > *ow, =rs. @itness, why do you +now that this is the si!nature of Bir!inia Cuevarra *abor? "fter preparin! that 7 saw her si!n the letter. *ow, after sendin! this %emand 6etter, do you +now 7f the accused herein made payments or replaced the chec+s that were issued to you?

$<U3:9 > <f course, you assumed that the accused received that letter, that is his basis on the premise that the accused received that letter?

"::G. "*CA6AS9 " Ges, Gour 8onor.

$<U3:9 > @hat proof is there to show that accused received the letter because your 5uestion is premises & sic' on the assumption that the accused received the letter?

"::G. "*CA6AS9 > " *ow, do you +now =rs. @itness if the accused received the letter? :here is a re!istry receipt.

$<U3:9 > " > " *ow, later on after sendin! that letter, did you have communication with the accused? 7 +ept on callin! her but 7 was not able to !et in touch with her. But do you +now if that letter of your lawyer was received by the accused? 7 was not informed by my lawyer but 7 presumed that the same was already received by the accused.

"::G. "*CA6AS9 > " *ow, aside from sendin! this %emand 6etter, do you +now what your lawyer did? @e filed a case with the FiscalKs.H/0I

"side from the above testimony, no other reference to the demand letter was made by the prosecution. :he prosecution claimed that the demand letter was sent by re!istered mail. :o prove this, it presented a copy of the demand letter as well as the re!istry return receipt bearin! a si!nature which was, however, not even authenticated or identified. " re!istry receipt alone is insufficient as proof of mailin!.H/1I M3eceipts for re!istered letters and return receipts do not prove themselves; they must be properly authenticated in order to serve as proof of receipt of the letters.NH/7I 7t is clear from the fore!oin! that complainant merely presumed that appellant received the demand letter prepared and sent by her lawyer. She was not certain if appellant indeed received the notice of dishonor of the chec+s. "ll she +new was that a demand letter was sent by her lawyer to the appellant. 7n fact, ri!ht after complainant made that presumption, her lawyer filed the criminal cases a!ainst appellant at the FiscalKs officeH/8I without any confirmation that the demand letter supposedly sent throu!h re!istered mail was actually received by appellant.

@ith the evident lac+ of notice of dishonor of the chec+s, appellant cannot be held !uilty of violation of B) //. :he lac+ of such notice violated appellantKs ri!ht to procedural due process. M7t is a !eneral rule that when service of notice is an issue, the person alle!in! that the notice was served must prove the fact of service.NH/9I :he burden of provin! receipt of notice rests upon the party assertin! it and the 5uantum of proof re5uired for conviction in this criminal case is proof beyond reasonable doubt. @hen, durin! the trial, appellant denied havin! received the demand letter, it became incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the demand letter was indeed sent throu!h re!istered mail and that the same was received by appellant. But it did not. <bviously, it relied merely on the wea+ness of the evidence of the defense. :his $ourt therefore cannot, with moral certainty, convict appellant of violation of B) //. :he evident failure of the prosecution to establish that she was !iven the re5uisite notice of dishonor justifies her ac5uittal.H-.I "s held in 6ao vs. $ourt of "ppeals9H-1I M7t has been observed that the State, under this statute, actually offers the violator Ja compromise by allowin! him to perform some act which operates to preempt the criminal action, and if he opts to perform it the action is abated.K :his was also compared Jto certain laws allowin! ille!al possessors of firearms a certain period of time to surrender the ille!ally possessed firearms to the Covernment, without incurrin! any criminal liability.K 7n this li!ht, the full payment of the amount appearin! in the chec+ within five ban+in! days from notice of dishonor is a Jcomplete defense.K :he absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily deprives an accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution. "ccordin!ly, procedural due process clearly enjoins that a notice of dishonor be actually served on petitioner. )etitioner has a ri!ht to demand P and the basic postulates of fairness re5uire 22 that the notice of dishonor be actually sent to and received by her to afford her the opportunity to avert prosecution under B.). //. Stated otherwise, responsibility under B) // was personal to appellant; hence, personal +nowled!e of the notice of dishonor was necessary. $onse5uently, while there may have been constructive notice to appellant re!ardin! the insufficiency of her funds in the ban+, it was not enou!h to satisfy the re5uirements of procedural due process. Finally, it is worth mentionin! that notice of dishonor is re5uired under both par. /&d' "rt. -10 of the 3)$ and Sec. / of B) //. @hile the 3)$ prescribes that the drawer of the chec+ must deposit the amount needed to cover his chec+ within three days from receipt of notice of dishonor, B) //, on the other hand, re5uires the ma+er or drawer to pay the amount of the chec+ within five days from receipt of notice of dishonor. Under both laws, notice of dishonor is necessary for prosecution &for estafa and violation of B) //'. @ithout proof of notice of dishonor, +nowled!e of insufficiency of funds cannot be presumed and no crime &whether estafa or violation of B) //' can be deemed to e#ist. ;HERE1ORE, the decision of the trial court is hereby 3ABA3SA% and SA: "S7%A. "ppellant $ora "bella <jeda is "$>U7::A% in $riminal $ase *o. 88211//8 for estafa and in $riminal $ase *os. 88211/-., 88211/-/, 88211/-0 to 88211/,., 88211/,/, 88211/,-, 88211/,0 to 88211/,8 for violation of B) //. SO OR"ERE". Vitug" ($hairman)" Sandoval)+utierre&" and Carpio)'orales" ,,." concur.

H1I H/I H-I H,I H0I H1I H7I H8I H9I

)enned by ud!e "rturo U. Barias, r. Rollo, p. ,.. A#hibit M"N. A#hibit MGN. A#hibits MQN, MGN, M""N, MBBN and M$$N. A#hibits M$N, M8N, M N, M=N, M<N and M3N. 3ecord, p. 1-9. Rollo, p. ,7. Rollo, p. ,9. Rollo, p. 0/. Ibid., p. 11. Rollo, p. 1/. Rollo, p. 7.. Ibid. Rollo, p. 71. Rollo, p. 71. Rollo, pp. 87288. Section / of B) // states9 SA$. /. 1vidence of $nowledge of insufficient funds. P :he ma+in!, drawin! and issuance of a chec+ payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such ban+, when presented <'()'n n'n*(y =90> $ays from the date of the chec+, shall be prima facie *4'$*n+* o0 ?no<2*$-* of such insufficiently of funds or credit unless such ma+er or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or ma+es arran!ements for payment in full by the drawee of such chec+ <'()'n 0'4* =5> 3an?'n- $ays a0(*r r*+*'4'n- no('+* that such chec+ has not been paid by the drawee.

H1.I H11I H1/I H1-I H1,I H10I H11I H17I H18I

H19I H/.I

Ibid. "rt. -10 par. /&d' of the 3evised )enal $ode states9 &d' By postdatin! a chec+, or issuin! a chec+ in payment of an obli!ation when the offender had no funds in the ban+, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the chec+. :he failure of the drawer of the chec+ to deposit the amount necessary to cover his chec+ <'()'n ()r** =7> $ays 0ro@ r*+*',( o0 no('+* from the ban+ andLor the payee or holder that said chec+ has been dishonored for lac+ or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie *4'$*n+* o0 $*+*'( constitutin! false pretense or fraudulent act.

H/1I

)eople vs. $hua, -10 S$3" -/1 H1999I.

H//I

)eople vs. Culion, -,9 S$3" 11. H/..1I; Ballarta vs. $ourt of "ppeals, 10. S$3" --1 H1987I; )eople vs. Billapando, 01 )hil. -1 H19-1I. /18 S$3" --/ H1997I. 6ecaroD vs. Sandi!anbayan, -.0 S$3" -91 H1999I. :S*, %ecember 7, 1989, pp. -72,-. :in! vs. $ourt of "ppeals, -,, S$3" 001 H/...I, citin! $entral :rust $o. vs. $ity of %es =oines" /18 *@ 08.. :in! vs. $ourt of "ppeals, ibid. :S*, %ecember 7, 1989, pp. ,/2/-. :in! vs. $ourt of "ppeals, supra" citin! 08 "m ur /d, *otice, R ,0. $aras vs. $ourt of "ppeals, -11 S$3" -71 H/..1I. 6ao vs. $ourt of "ppeals, /7, S$3" 07/ H1997I.

H/-I H/,I H/0I H/1I H/7I H/8I H/9I H-.I H-1I

;'()ou( ,roo0 o0 no('+* o0 $'s)onor, ?no<2*$-* o0 'nsu00'+'*n+y o0 0un$s +anno( 3* ,r*su@*$ an$ no +r'@* =<)*()*r *s(a0a or 4'o2a('on o0 .P 66> +an 3* $**@*$ (o *A's( )osted on "pril 8, /.11 %A$A7: "*% %"="CA "S A6A=A*:S <F AS:"F"

Under para!raph / &d' of "rticle -10 of the 3)$, as amended by 3" ,880,H/.I the elements of estafa are9 &1' a chec+ is postdated or issued in payment of an obli!ation contracted at the time it is issued; &/' lac+ or insufficiency of funds to cover the chec+; &-' dama!e to the payee thereof. %eceit and dama!e are essential elements of the offense and must be established by satisfactory proof to warrant conviction.H/1I :hus, the drawer of the dishonored chec+ is !iven three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to cover the amount of the chec+. <therwise a prima facie presumption of deceit arises. :he prosecution failed to prove deceit in this case. :he prima facie presumption of deceit was successfully rebutted by appellantKs evidence of !ood faith, a defense in estafa by postdatin! a chec+.H//I Cood faith may be demonstrated, for instance, by a debtorKs offer to arran!e a payment scheme with his creditor. 7n this case, the debtor not only made arran!ements for payment; as complainant herself cate!orically stated, the debtor2appellant fully paid the entire amount of the dishonored chec+s. 7t must be noted that our 3evised )enal $ode was enacted to penaliDe unlawful acts accompanied by evil intent denominated as crimes mala in se. :he principal consideration is the e#istence of malicious intent. :here is a concurrence of freedom, intelli!ence and intent which to!ether ma+e up the Mcriminal mindN behind the Mcriminal act.N :hus, to constitute a crime, the act must, !enerally and in most cases, be accompanied by a criminal intent. ctus non facit reum" nisi mens sit rea. *o crime is committed if the mind of the

person performin! the act complained of is innocent. "s we held in 0abuena vs. Sandiganbayan9H/-I :he rule was reiterated in !eople v. !acana, althou!h this case involved falsification of public documents and estafa9 M<rdinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime. no crime when the criminal mind is wantin!.N "merican jurisprudence echoes the same principle. 7t adheres to the view that criminal intent in embeDDlement is not based on technical mista+es as to the le!al effect of a transaction honestly entered into, and there can be no embeDDlement if the mind of the person doin! the act is innocent or if there is no wron!ful purpose. ctus non facit reum" nisi mens sit rea. :here can be

:he accused may thus prove that he acted in !ood faith and that he had no intention to convert the money or !oods for his personal benefit.H/,I @e are convinced that appellant was able to prove the absence of criminal intent in her transactions with $hua. 8ad her

intention been tainted with malice and deceit, appellant would not have e#erted e#traordinary effort to pay the complainant, !iven her own business and financial reverses. "side from the above testimony, no other reference to the demand letter was made by the prosecution. :he prosecution claimed that the demand letter was sent by re!istered mail. :o prove this, it presented a copy of the demand letter as well as the re!istry return receipt bearin! a si!nature which was, however, not even authenticated or identified. " re!istry receipt alone is insufficient as proof of mailin!.H/1I M3eceipts for re!istered letters and return receipts do not prove themselves; they must be properly authenticated in order to serve as proof of receipt of the letters.NH/7I 7t is clear from the fore!oin! that complainant merely presumed that appellant received the demand letter prepared and sent by her lawyer. She was not certain if appellant indeed received the notice of dishonor of the chec+s. "ll she +new was that a demand letter was sent by her lawyer to the appellant. 7n fact, ri!ht after complainant made that presumption, her lawyer filed the criminal cases a!ainst appellant at the FiscalKs officeH/8Iwithout any confirmation that the demand letter supposedly sent throu!h re!istered mail was actually received by appellant. @ith the evident lac+ of notice of dishonor of the chec+s, appellant cannot be held !uilty of violation of B) //. :he lac+ of such notice violated appellantKs ri!ht to procedural due process. M7t is a !eneral rule that when service of notice is an issue, the person alle!in! that the notice was served must prove the fact of service.NH/9I :he burden of provin! receipt of notice rests upon the party assertin! it and the 5uantum of proof re5uired for conviction in this criminal case is proof beyond reasonable doubt. @hen, durin! the trial, appellant denied havin! received the demand letter, it became incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the demand letter was indeed sent throu!h re!istered mail and that the same was received by appellant. But it did not. <bviously, it relied merely on the wea+ness of the evidence of the defense.

:his $ourt therefore cannot, with moral certainty, convict appellant of violation of B) //. :he evident failure of the prosecution to establish that she was !iven the re5uisite notice of dishonor justifies her ac5uittal.H-.I "s held in 6ao vs. $ourt of "ppeals9H-1I M7t has been observed that the State, under this statute, actually offers the violator Ja compromise by allowin! him to perform some act which operates to preempt the criminal action, and if he opts to perform it the action is abated.K :his was also compared Jto certain laws allowin! ille!al possessors of firearms a certain period of time to surrender the ille!ally possessed firearms to the Covernment, without incurrin! any criminal liability.K 7n this li!ht, the full payment of the amount appearin! in the chec+ within five ban+in! days from notice of dishonor is a Jcomplete defense.K :he absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily deprives an accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution. "ccordin!ly, procedural due process clearly enjoins that a notice of dishonor be actually served on petitioner. )etitioner has a ri!ht to demand P and the basic postulates of fairness re5uire S that the notice of dishonor be actually sent to and received by her to afford her the opportunity to avert prosecution under B.). //.

Stated otherwise, responsibility under B) // was personal to appellant; hence, personal +nowled!e of the notice of dishonor was necessary. $onse5uently, while there may have been constructive notice to appellant re!ardin! the insufficiency of her funds in the ban+, it was not enou!h to satisfy the re5uirements of procedural due process.

Finally, it is worth mentionin! that notice of dishonor is re5uired under both par. /&d' "rt. -10 of the 3)$ and Sec. / of B) //. @hile the 3)$ prescribes that the drawer of the chec+ must deposit the amount needed to cover his chec+ within three days from receipt of notice of dishonor, B) //, on the other hand, re5uires the ma+er or drawer to pay the amount of the chec+ within five days from receipt of notice of dishonor. Under both laws, notice of dishonor is necessary for prosecution &for estafa and violation of B) //'. @ithout proof of notice of dishonor, +nowled!e of insufficiency of funds cannot be presumed and no crime &whether estafa or violation of B) //' can be deemed to e#ist. http9LLsc.judiciary.!ov.phLjurisprudenceL/..,Ljun/..,L1.,/-8T08.htm

JOINT !OUNTER-A11I"A/IT O1 THE RESPON"ENTS AA

:8A U*%A3S7C*A% RESPON"ENTS respectfully state9

1.

A"9ISSIONS AN" "ENIA%S.

Q # #. &omitted'

6. /.1.

"IS!USSION :he relevant provisions of the 3evised )enal $ode on estafa &deceitLswindlin!' are as follows9 "rticle -10. Swindlin! &estafa'. S "ny person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by9 1st. :he penalty of prision correccional in its ma#imum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 1/,... pesos but does not e#ceed //,... pesos, and if such amount e#ceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this para!raph shall be imposed in its ma#imum period, addin! one year for each additional 1.,... pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not e#ceed twenty years. 7n such case, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of other the provisions of this $ode, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. /nd. :he penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is over 1,... pesos but does not e#ceed 1/,... pesos; -rd. :he penalty of arresto mayor in its ma#imum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if such amount is over /.. pesos but does not e#ceed 1,... pesos; and ,th. By arresto mayor in its medium and ma#imum periods, if such amount does not e#ceed /.. pesos, provided that in the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the followin! means9 1. @ith unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely9 &a' By alterin! the substance, 5uantity, or 5uality of anythin! of value which the offender shall deliver by virtue of an obli!ation to do so, even thou!h such obli!ation be based on an immoral or ille!al consideration. &b' By misappropriatin! or convertin!, to the prejudice of another, money, !oods, or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obli!ation involvin! the duty to ma+e delivery of or to return the same, even thou!h such obli!ation be totally or partially !uaranteed by a bond; or by denyin! havin! received such money, !oods, or other property. &c' By ta+in! undue advanta!e of the si!nature of the offended party in blan+, and by writin! any document above such si!nature in blan+, to the prejudice of the offended party or of any third person. /. By means of any of the followin! false pretenses or fraudulent acts e#ecuted prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud9 &a' By usin! fictitious name, or falsely pretendin! to possess power, influence, 5ualifications, property, credit, a!ency, business or ima!inary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.

&b' By alterin! the 5uality, fineness or wei!ht of anythin! pertainin! to his art or business. &c' By pretendin! to have bribed any Covernment employee, without prejudice to the action for calumny which the offended party may deem proper to brin! a!ainst the offender. 7n this case, the offender shall be punished by the ma#imum period of the penalty. &d' By post2datin! a chec+, or issuin! a chec+ in payment of an obli!ation when the offender had no funds in the ban+, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of chec+. :he failure of the drawer of the chec+ to deposit the amount necessary to cover his chec+ within three &-' days from receipt of notice from the ban+ andLor the payee or holder that said chec+ has been dishonored for lac+ of insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constitutin! false pretense or fraudulent act. &"s amended by 3epublic "ct *o. ,880, approved une 17, 1917.' &e' By obtainin! any food, refreshment or accommodation at a hotel, inn, restaurant, boardin! house, lod!in! house, or apartment house and the li+e without payin! therefor, with intent to defraud the proprietor or mana!er thereof, or by obtainin! credit at a hotel, inn, restaurant, boardin! house, lod!in! house, or apartment house by the use of any false pretense, or by abandonin! or surreptitiously removin! any part of his ba!!a!e from a hotel, inn, restaurant, boardin! house, lod!in! house or apartment house after obtainin! credit, food, refreshment or accommodation therein without payin! for his food, refreshment or accommodation. &"s amended by $om. "ct *o. 107.' -. :hrou!h any of the followin! fraudulent means9 &a' By inducin! another, by means of deceit, to si!n any document. &b' By resortin! to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a !amblin! !ame. &c' By removin!, concealin! or destroyin!, in whole or in part, any court record, office files, document or any other papers. Q # #.

/./.

7n the case of "IONISIO A; a.k.a. TON# GO 4s. PEOP%E O1 THE PHI%IPPINES, GR No. 186676, 9ar+) 69, 6010, the elements of Astafa were discussed by the Supreme $ourt, thus9

Q##.

:he elements of 1stafa under "rticle -10, )ara!raph 1&B' of the 3evised )enal $ode are9

&a'

that money, !oods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or

under any other obli!ation involvin! the duty to ma+e delivery of or to return the same.

&b'

that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt

&c'

that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and

&d'

there is demand by the offended party to the offender.

:he first element of 1stafa under "rticle -10, )ara!raph 1&B' is the receipt by the offender of the money, !oods, or other personal property in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obli!ation involvin! the duty to ma+e delivery of or to return the same.

Q # #.

@e ne#t turn to the second element of 1stafa under "rticle -10, )ara!raph 1&B' namely, prejudice and the third element, therein of misappropriation.

:he essence of 1stafa under "rticle -10, para!raph 1&b' is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the owner. :he words MconvertN and MmisappropriateN connote an act of usin! or disposin! of anotherKs property as if it

were oneKs own, or of devotin! it to a purpose or use different from that a!reed upon. :o misappropriate for oneKs own use includes not only conversion to oneKs personal advanta!e, but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without ri!ht.

Q # #.

6.7.

7n the case of ROSITA S# 4s. PEOP%E O1 THE PHI%IPPINES, G.R. No. 187879, A,r'2 15, 6010 discussed the ways of committin! the felony of estafa, thus9

Q # #.

:he sole issue for resolution is whether Sy should be held liable forestafa, penaliDed under "rticle -10, para!raph /&a' of the 3evised )enal $ode &3)$'.

Swindlin! or estafa is punishable under "rticle -10 of the 3)$. :here are three ways of committin! estafa, vi&.9 &1' with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence; &/' by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts; or &-' throu!h fraudulent means. :he three ways of committin! estafa may be reduced to two, i.e., &1' by means of abuse of confidence; or &/' by means of deceit.

:he elements of estafa in !eneral are the followin!9 &a' that an accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence, or by means of deceit; and &b' that dama!e and prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused the offended party or third person.

:he act complained of in the instant case is penaliDed under "rticle -10, para!raph /&a' of the 3)$, wherein estafa is committed by any person who shall defraud another by false pretenses or fraudulent acts e#ecuted prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. 7t is committed by usin! fictitious name, or by pretendin! to possess power, influence, 5ualifications, property, credit, a!ency, business or ima!inary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.

:he elements of estafa by means of deceit are the followin!, vi&.9 &a' that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, 5ualifications, property, credit, a!ency, business or ima!inary transactions; &b' that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or e#ecuted prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; &c' that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and &d' that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered dama!e.

Q # #.

6.5.

7n the case of 1RAN!IS!O R. %%A9AS an$ !AR9E%ITA !. %%A9AS 4s. THE HONORA.%E !OURT O1 APPEA%S, .RAN!H 66 O1 THE REGIONA% TRIA% !OURT O1 9A:ATI !IT# an$ THE PEOP%E O1 THE PHI%IPPINES, GR No. 159588, Au-us( 16, 6010, it was held, amon! other thin!s, that %"="CA is an element of estafa, thus9

Q # #.

"rticle -11 &/' of the 3evised )enal $ode states9

"3:. -11. <ther forms of swindlin!. P :he penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not less than the value of the dama!e caused and not more than three times such value, shall be imposed upon9

###

/. "ny person who, +nowin! that real property is encumbered, shall dispose of the same, althou!h such encumbrance be not recorded;

###

7n every criminal prosecution, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime char!ed and the complicity or participation of the accused.

For petitioners to be convicted of the crime of swindlin! under "rticle -11 &/' of the 3evised )enal $ode, the prosecution had the burden to prove the confluence of the followin! essential elements of the crime9

1. that the thin! disposed of be real property;

/. that the offender +new that the real property was encumbered, whether the encumbrance is recorded or not;

-. that there must be e#press representation by the offender that the real property is free from encumbrance; and

,. that the act of disposin! of the real property be made to the dama!e of another.

<ne of the essential elements of swindlin! under "rticle -11, para!raph /, is that the act of disposin! the encumbered real property is made to the dama!e of another. 7n this case, neither the trial court nor the $" made any findin! of any dama!e to the offended party. *owhere in the %ecision of the 3:$ or that of the $" is there any discussion that there was dama!e suffered by complainant "vila, or any findin! that his ri!hts over the property were prejudiced.

<n the contrary, complainant had possession and control of the land even as the cases were bein! heard. 8is possession and ri!ht to e#ercise dominion over the property was not disturbed. "dmittedly, there was delay in the delivery of the title. :his, however, was the subject of a separate case, which was eventually decided in petitionersK favor.

7f no dama!e should result from the sale, no crime of estafa would have been committed by the vendor, as the element of dama!e would then be lac+in!. :he inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that petitioners should be ac5uitted of the crime char!ed.

Q # #. &underscoring supplied'

/.0.

:here is no proof that the respondents intentionally, maliciously and feloniously deceived the association. 3espondents # # # and # ## si!ned the 5uestioned chec+ as authoriDed ban+ si!natories of the association.

&(ote2 3espondent # # # did not si!n the chec+. 8e did not participate in the 5uestioned transactions in any manner'.

/.0.1.

:here is no proof that the respondents dama!ed the association by usin!, malversin! or convertin! the 5uestioned amount to their own personal use.

/.0./.

3espondents # # # and # # # simply transferred the amount to the name of the new $ooperative 7* C<<% F"7:8 in accord with the formal manifestation, mandate, order, wish, and desire of the members of the association who had formed a new $ooperative and who had mandated the association to transfer its funds, assets, concessions, and contracts association to the new $ooperative.

/.0.-.

C<<% F"7:8 is a defense in malum en se, such as estafa. :his is too basic and too elementary a doctrine that it does not re5uire jurisprudential citations. "t any rate, the followin! cases are cited9

PEOP%E O1 THE PHI%IPPINES 4s. !ORA A.E%%A OJE"A, G.R. Nos. 105678-58, Jun* 6005, on C<<% F7":8 as a defense in estafa and mala en se.

Q # #.

31C1I0

(3 3 ' +1

S 141'1(0S 5- 1S0 -

Under para!raph / &d' of "rticle -10 of the 3)$, as amended by 3" ,880, the elements of estafa are9 &1' a chec+ is postdated or issued in payment of an obli!ation contracted at the time it is issued; &/' lac+ or insufficiency of funds to cover the chec+; &-' dama!e to the payee thereof. "*+*'( an$ $a@a-* ar* *ss*n('a2 *2*@*n(s o0 ()* o00*ns* an$ @us( 3* *s(a32's)*$ 3y sa('s0a+(ory ,roo0 (o <arran( +on4'+('on. :hus, the drawer of the dishonored chec+ is !iven three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to cover the amount of the chec+. <therwise a prima facie presumption of deceit arises.

:he prosecution failed to prove deceit in this case. :he prima faciepresumption of deceit was successfully rebutted by appellantKs evidence of !ood faith, a defense in estafa by postdatin! a chec+. Cood faith may be demonstrated, for instance, by a debtorKs offer to arran!e a payment scheme with his creditor. 7n this case, the debtor not only made arran!ements for payment; as complainant herself cate!orically stated, the debtor2appellant fully paid the entire amount of the dishonored chec+s.

7t must be noted that our 3evised )enal $ode was enacted to penaliDe unlawful acts accompanied by evil intent denominated as crimes mala in se. T)* ,r'n+',a2 +ons'$*ra('on 's ()* *A's(*n+* o0 @a2'+'ous 'n(*n(. :here is a concurrence of freedom, intelli!ence and intent which to!ether ma+e up the Mcriminal mindN behind the Mcriminal act.N :hus, to constitute a crime, the act must, !enerally and in most cases, be accompanied by a criminal intent. ctus non facit reum" nisi mens sit rea. No +r'@* 's +o@@'((*$ '0 ()* @'n$ o0 ()* ,*rson ,*r0or@'n- ()* a+( +o@,2a'n*$ o0 's 'nno+*n(. "s we held in 0abuena vs. Sandiganbayan" 678 SCR 996 :;<<=>.9

:he rule was reiterated in !eople v. !acana, althou!h this case involved falsification of public documents and estafa9

M<rdinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime. no crime when the criminal mind is wantin!.N

ctus non facit reum" nisi mens sit rea. :here can be

"merican jurisprudence echoes the same principle. 7t adheres to the view that criminal intent in embeDDlement is not based on technical mista+es as to the le!al effect of a transaction honestly entered into, and there can be no embeDDlement if the mind of the person doin! the act is innocent or if there is no wron!ful purpose.

Q # #. (underscoring supplied). #y nalogy2 1RAN!IS!O 9. %E!ARO& an$ %EN%IE %E!ARO&, vs.SAN"IGAN.A#AN an$ PEOP%E O1 THE PHI%IPPINES, G.R. No. 170876, 9ar+) 65, 1999, re9 )3SU=):7<* <F C<<% F"7:8.

Q # #.

:he rule is that any mista+e on a doubtful or difficult 5uestion of law may be the basis of !ood faith. 7n Cabungcal v. Cordova"(o. 4) ;7<9?" 9; ,uly" ;<7?" ;; SCR @8?, we affirmed the doctrine that an erroneous interpretation of the meanin! of the provisions of an

ordinance by a city mayor does not amount to bad faith that would entitle an a!!rieved party to dama!es a!ainst that official. @e reiterated this principle in 'abutol v. !ascual which held that public officials may not be liable for dama!es in the dischar!e of their official functions absent any bad faith. Sanders v. Veridiano II e#panded the concept by declarin! that under the law on public officers, acts done in the performance of official duty are protected by the presumption of !ood faith.

Q # #.

/.0.,.

Q # #.

/.0.0. /.1. /.7.

Q # #. Q # #. 7n the case of PEOP%E O1 THE PHI%IPPINES 4s. 1E%I!IANO ANA.E y !API%%AN, G.R. No. 179077 , S*,(*@3*r 6, 6010, where conspiracy was not proved, the Supreme $ourt held, thus9

A x x. @hile conspiracy was alle!ed in the 7nformations, it was notestablished durin! the trial.

$onspiracy as a basis for conviction must rest on nothin! less than a moral certainty. $onsiderin! the far2reachin! conse5uences of a criminal conspiracy, the same de!ree of proof necessary in establishin! the crime is re5uired to support the attendance thereof, i.e., it must be shown to e#ist as clearly and convincin!ly as the commission of the offense itself. @hile conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence, it is nonetheless re5uired that it be proved by clear and convincin! evidence by showin! a series of acts done by each of the accused in concert and in pursuance of the common unlawful purpose.

7n the present case, there is want of evidence to show the concerted acts of appellant, $onrada and Felicita &albeit already dischar!ed' in pursuin! a common desi!n S to rob Uy. :he prosecution in fact appears to have abandoned the theory of conspiracy

alto!ether, no evidence thereof havin! been presented. that are imputable to him with moral certainty.

bsent proof of conspiracy" appellant may only be held accountable for acts

Q # #.

/.8.

7* :8A $"SA <F ROSIE BUI"ET /S. PEOP%E O1 THE PHI%IPPINES, G.R. NO. 170689, APRI% 8, 6010, 7: @"S 8A6%, :8US9

$onspiracy must be proved as clearly and convincin!ly as the commission of the offense itself for it is a facile device by which an accused may be ensnared and +ept within the penal fold. 7n case of reasonable doubt as to its e#istence, the balance tips in favor of the milder form of criminal liability as what is at sta+e is the accusedKs liberty. @e apply these principles in this case.

Q # #.

$onspiracy e#ists when two or more persons come to an a!reement concernin! the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. :he essence of conspiracy is the unity of action and purpose. 7ts elements, li+e the physical acts constitutin! the crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. @hen there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.

$onspiracy can be inferred from and established by the acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and desi!n, concerted action and community of interests. 8owever, in determinin! whether conspiracy e#ists, it is not sufficient that the attac+ be joint and simultaneous for simultaneousness does not of itself demonstrate the concurrence of will or unity of action and purpose which are the bases of the responsibility of the assailants. @hat is determinative is proof establishin! that the accused were animated by one and the same purpose.

Q # #.

:here is no 5uestion that (a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another where, between them, there has been conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime char!ed.( 7t is, li+ewise, settled that (to establish conspiracy, it is not necessary to prove previous a!reement to commit a crime, if there is proof that the malefactors have acted in consort and in pursuance of the same objective.( *evertheless, (the evidence to prove the same must be positive and

convincin!. "s a facile device by which an accused may be ensnared and +ept within the penal fold, conspiracy re5uires conclusive proof if we are to maintain in full stren!th the substance of the time2honored principle in criminal law re5uirin! proof beyond reasonable doubt before conviction.(

Q # #.

=oreover, althou!h the appellant and his co2accused acted with some de!ree of simultaneity in attac+in! the deceased, nevertheless, the same is insufficient to prove conspiracy. :he rule is well2settled that (simultaneousness does not of itself demonstrate the concurrence of will nor the unity of action and purpose which are the basis of the responsibility of two or more individuals.( :o establish common responsibility it is not sufficient that the attac+ be joint and simultaneous; it is necessary that the assailants be animated by one and the same purpose. 7n the case at bar, the appellant 3aymundo Bistido and the accused )epito =ontaUo, did not act pursuant to the same objective. :hus, the purpose of the latter was to +ill as shown by the fact that he inflicted a mortal wound below the abdomen of the deceased which caused his death. <n the other hand, the act of the appellant in !ivin! the deceased one fist blow after the latter was stabbed by the accused )epito =ontaUo S an act which is certainly unnecessary

and not indispensable for the consummation of the criminal assault S does not indicate a purpose to +ill the deceased, but merely to (show off( or e#press his sympathy or feelin! of camaraderie with the accused )epito =ontaUo. :hus, in !eople vs. !ortugue&a, this $ourt held that9

Q # #.

By and lar!e, the evidence for the prosecution failed to show the e#istence of conspiracy which, accordin! to the settled rule, must be shown to e#ist as clearly and convincin!ly as the crime itself. 7n the absence of conspiracy, the liability of the defendants is separate and individual, each is liable for his own acts, the dama!e caused thereby, and the conse5uences thereof. @hile the evidence shows that the appellant bo#ed the deceased, it is, however, silent as to the e#tent of the injuries, in which case, the appellant should be held liable only for sli!ht physical injuries.

@e reach the same conclusion here. For failure of the prosecution to prove conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt, petitionerKs liability is separate and individual. Q # #.

/.9.

Q # #..

/.1..

:he respondents reserve the ri!ht to file a SU))6A=A*:"6 "FF7%"B7: # # #.

/.11.

:he respondents reserve the ri!ht to file a 3A <7*%A32"FF7%"B7:.

PRA#ER

;HERE1ORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the instant criminal complaint be %7S=7SSA% for lac+ of merit.

1ur()*r, the respondents respectfully pray for such and other reliefs as may be deemed just and e5uitable in the premises.

Q # # $ity, # # #.

SE!ON" "I/ISION CG.R. No. 165675, S*,(*@3*r 67, 60088 GORETTI ONG, PETITIONER, /S. PEOP%E O1 THE PHI%IPPINES, RESPON"ENT. "E!ISION !ARPIO 9ORA%ES, J.D Coretti <n! &petitioner' was, by 7nformation dated "u!ust 1., 1990, char!ed before the 3e!ional :rial $ourt &3:$' of =anila for Astafa, without specification under what mode in "rticle -10 of the 3evised )enal $ode the offense was alle!edly committed. :he 7nformation alle!ed as follows9 :hat on or about %ecember 1/, 199,, in the $ity of =anila, )hilippines, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously$*0rau$ 3<S" $"BUS< in the followin! manner, to wit9 the said accused, <*22 ?no<'n- ()a( Cs8)* $'$ no( )a4* su00'+'*n( 0un$s in the ban+, and <'()ou( 'n0or@'n- ()* sa'$ Rosa !a3uso o0 su+) 0a+(, drew, made out and 'ssu*$ to the latter the followin! +)*+?s, to wit9 "llied Ban+ $hec+ *o. 71.../,/ dated anuary 1-, 1990 in the amount of )71,10,...;

Banco de <ro $hec+ *o. ./1/10 dated anuary 10, 1990 in the amount of )71,10,...;

)S Ban+ $hec+ *o. ...9/8 dated anuary 18, 1990 in the amount of )1..,......;

Banco de <ro $hec+ *o. ./1/7. dated anuary 10, 1990 in the amount of )1..,......;

Banco de <ro $hec+ *o. ./1/11 dated anuary /., 1990 in the amount of )71,10,...;

Banco de <ro $hec+ *o. ./1/17 dated anuary /0, 1990 in the amount of )91,,9,...;

)S Ban+ $hec+ *o. ...9/7 dated anuary -1, 1990 in the amount of )91,,9,...;

Banco de <ro $hec+ *o. ./1/71 dated anuary -1, 1990, in the amount of )1..,......;

Banco de <ro $hec+ *o. /1/18 dated anuary -1, 1990 in the amount of )71,10,...; and

)S Ban+ $hec+ *o. ...90. dated anuary -1, 1990 in the amount of )1,,,....... all in the total amount of )9/-,11...., in payment of assorted pieces of jewelry which the said accused ordered, purchased and received from the said complainant on the same day; that upon presentment of the said chec+s to the ban+ for payment, the same were dishonored and payment thereof refused for the reason ("$$<U*: $6<SA%( and said accused, no(<'()s(an$'n- $u* no('+* (o )*r 3y sa'$ +o@,2a'nan( o0 su+) $'s)onor o0 ()* sa'$ +)*+?s, 0a'2*$ an$ r*0us*$ an$ s('22 0a'2Cs8 an$ r*0us*Cs8 (o $*,os'( ()* n*+*ssary a@oun( to cover the amount of the chec+s, to the $a@a-* an$ ,r*Eu$'+* o0 ()* sa'$ Rosa !a3uso in the aforesaid amount of )9/-,11...., )hilippine HcIurrency.H1I &Amphasis and underscorin! supplied' )etitioner had for years been buyin! jewelry from Cold "sia which is owned and operated by the family of 3osa $abuso &the private complainant'. @hile she normally bou!ht jewelry on cash basis, she was allowed to issue postdated chec+s to cover the jewelry she bou!ht in %ecember 199, up to February 1990, upon her assurance that the chec+s would be funded on their due dates. @hen, on maturity, the chec+s were deposited, they were returned with the stamp ("ccount $losed.(

8ence, petitioner was indicted for Astafa. She was li+ewise indicted for 1. counts of violation of B.). // before the 3:$ of =anila, doc+eted as $riminal $ase *os. /1-1,02$3 to /1-10,2$3.

:he evidence presented by the prosecution in the Astafa case consisted of, inter alia"the 1. dishonored chec+s and the transcript of steno!raphic notesH/I ta+en durin! the trial of the B.). // cases, which transcripts included those of the testimonies of representatives of the drawee ban+s "llied Ban+, )SBan+ and Banco de <ro.

)etitioner, denyin! havin! intended to defraud the private complainant, !ave her side of the case as follows9

<n %ecember 1/, 199,, all the personal chec+s she had issued matured at the same time, but as her business was farin! poorly, she was not able to fund those which she issued to the private complainant. <n her re5uest, however, the private complainant allowed her to pay on installment the amounts covered by the chec+s and she had in fact paid a total of )--8,/0., a fact admitted by the prosecution.

By %ecisionH-I of =arch -1, /..-, Branch 8 of the =anila 3:$ convicted petitioner of Astafa under "rticle -10, para!raph /&a' of the 3evised )enal $ode in this wise9 @hile the parties are of the impression that the accused is char!ed with and is bein! tried for the crime of estafa committed by means of the issuance of bouncin! chec+s H"rt. -10, /&d' of the 3evised )enal $odeI, this $ourt is of the opinion that ()* In0or@a('on su00'+'*n(2y +)ar-*s *s(a0a ()rou-) 0a2s* ,r*(*ns*s un$*r Para-ra,) 6=a>of the same article which provides9 ("rt. -10. Swindlin! &estafa'. 2 "ny person who shall defraud another . . .

####

/. By means of any of the followin! false pretenses or fraudulent acts e#ecuted prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud9 a' By usin! a fictitious name or falsely pretendin! to possess power, influence, 5ualifications, property, credit, a!ency, business or ima!inary transactions; or by means of similar deceits.(H,I&Amphasis and underscorin! supplied' :hus the trial court disposed9

@8A3AF<3A, the $ourt hereby renders jud!ment findin! accused Coretti <n! CU76:G BAG<*% 3A"S<*"B6A %<UB: of the crime ofAstafa defined and penaliDed under "rticle -10, para!raph /&a' of the 3evised )enal $ode and hereby imposes on said accused the penalty of :@A6BA &1/' GA"3S imprisonment and to pay private complainant 3osa $abuso the amount of F7BA 8U*%3A% A7C8:G F<U3 :8<US"*% A7C8: 8U*%3A% S7Q:G &)08,,81....' )AS<S and cost of suit. H0I&Underscorin! supplied' )etitioner challen!ed the trial court4s decision before the $ourt of "ppeals, raisin! the issue of whether she could be convicted of Astafa under "rticle -10, para!raph /&a' of the 3evised )enal $ode when she was, in the 7nformation, char!ed of Astafa under "rticle -10, para!raph /&d' of the same $ode. She additionally raised the followin! issues9 ####

/.

@hether or not the decision of the trial court is valid even if it failed to comply with the provisions of the indeterminate sentence law;

3.

@hether or not the accused2appellant can be convicted of the crime of estafa despite the failure of the prosecution to prove her !uilt beyond reasonable doubtH.IH1I &Underscorin! supplied'

:he $ourt of "ppeals affirmed the conviction on appeal but modified the penalty and the amount of indemnity,H7I disposin! as follows9 @8A3AF<3A, premises considered, the present appeal is hereby %7S=7SSA% for lac+ of merit. :he appealed decision dated =arch -1, /..- of the trial court in $riminal $ase *o. 9021,,,/1 is hereby "FF73=A% with =<%7F7$":7<* in that the accused2appellant is hereby instead sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of four &,' years and two &/' months of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty &/.' years of reclusion temporal as ma#imum, and to indemnify the complainin! witness in the amount of )080,01,....

@ith costs a!ainst the accused2appellant.H8I 8er =otion for 3econsiderationH9I havin! been denied,
H1.I

petitioner filed the present petition,H11I faultin! the appellate court for

convictin! her of Astafa despite her !ood faith and lac+ of criminal intent, and violatin! her constitutional ri!ht to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation a!ainst her by affirmin! the trial court4s decision findin! her !uilty of Astafa under "rticle -10, para!raph /&a', when she was char!ed under para!raph /&d' of the same "rticle.H1/I

:he appeal is impressed with merit.

Section 1,&/' of "rticle 777 of the $onstitution !rants the accused the ri!ht to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. :his is to enable the accused to ade5uately prepare for his defense. "n accused cannot thus be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly char!ed in the complaint or information.H1-I

From the alle!ations in an information, the real nature of the crime char!ed is determined.17 7n the case at bar, the 7nformation alle!ed that petitioner issued the 5uestioned chec+s +nowin! that she had no funds in the ban+ and failin! to fund them$*s,'(* no('+* that they were dishonored. :hese alle!ations clearly constitute a char!e, not under para!raph /&a' as the lower courts found but, under para!raph /&d' of "rticle -10 of the 3evised )enal $ode which is committed as follows9 ####

&a' /&d' By postdatin! a chec+, or issuin! a chec+ in payment of an obli!ation when the offender had no funds in the ban+, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the chec+. :he failure of the drawer of the chec+ to deposit the amount necessary to cover this chec+ within three &-' days from receipt of notice from the ban+ andLor the payee or holder that said chec+ has been dishonored for lac+ or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constitutin! false pretense or fraudulent act.

# # # # &Underscorin! supplied' "lthou!h the earlier 5uoted para!raph /&a' and the immediately 5uoted para!raph /&d' of "rticle -10 have a common element 2 false pretenses or fraudulent acts 2 the law treats Astafa under para!raph /&d' by postdatin! a chec+ or issuin! a bouncin! chec+ differently. :hus, under para!raph /&d', failure to fund the chec+ despite notice of dishonor creates a prima facie presumption of deceit constitutin! false pretense or fraudulent act, which is not an element of a violation of para!raph /&a'.

Under para!raph /&d', if there is no proof of notice of dishonor, +nowled!e of insufficiency of funds cannot be presumed, and unless

there is a priori intent, which is hard to determine and may not be inferred from mere failure to comply with a promise, no Astafa can be deemed to e#ist. So holds the /.., case of !eople v. 5%eda.H1,I # # # CN8o('+* o0 $'s)onor 's r*Fu'r*$ under both ,ar. 6=$> Ar(. 715 of the 3HevisedI )HenalI $HodeI and Sec. / of B) //. @hile the 3)$ prescribes that the drawer of the chec+ must deposit the amount needed to cover his chec+ within three days from receipt of notice of dishonor, B) //, on the other hand, re5uires the ma+er or drawer to pay the amount of the chec+ within five days from receipt of notice of dishonor. Un$*r 3o() 2a<s, no('+* o0 $'s)onor 's n*+*ssary 0or ,ros*+u('on &for estafa and violation of B) //'. @ithout proof of notice of dishonor, +nowled!e of insufficiency of funds cannot be presumed and no crime &<)*()*r estafa or 4'o2a('on o0 .P 66> +an 3* $**@*$ (o *A's(.H10I &Amphasis and underscorin! supplied' *otice of dishonor bein! then an element of a char!e under "rticle /&d' under which petitioner was clearly char!ed, failure to prove it is a !round for ac5uittal thereunder.

7n affirmin! the trial court4s decision, the $ourt of "ppeals relied on the rulin! in the /..- case of +arcia v. !eopleH11I wherein this $ourt upheld the appellate court4s affirmance of the trial court4s conviction of the accused for Astafa under "rticle -10, (Section /&/' HsicI of the 3evised )enal $ode.( 7n that case, the accused was char!ed as follows9 :hat on or about and durin! the period comprised between une /., 1990, and "u!ust 10, 1990, inclusive, in the $ity of =anila, )hilippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud %<6<3AS S. ")<6<*7< in the followin! manner, to wit9 the said accused by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations which she made to said %<6<3AS S. ")<6<*7< to the effect that accused has three &-' chec+s which accordin! to her have sufficient funds and if encashed, the same will not be dishonored; andby means of other deceits of similar import, induced and succeeded in inducin! the said %<6<3AS S. ")<6<*7< to accept the followin! chec+s9 *ame of Ban+ )hil. *at4l. Ban+ 2 do 2 )ilipinas Ban+ $hec+ *o. .,188, .,7,11 1..,/.87 "mount )/8,...... -,,...... /0,...... %ate 12/.2V90 82102V90 72/02V90 )ayable to $ash 2 do 2 Carcia Be!etable %ealer

as payments of assorted ve!etables which accused purchased and received from said %<6<3AS S. ")<6<*7< in the amount of )87,......, said accused +nowin! fully well that the said manifestations and representations were all false and untrue as said chec+s when presented to the ban+ for payment were all dishonored for the reason (%rawn "!ainst 7nsufficient Funds,( and were made solely for the purpose of obtainin!, as in fact she did obtain assorted ve!etables in the amount of )87,......; which once in her possession and with intent to defraud, she willin!ly, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted the said assorted ve!etables or the value thereof to her own personal use and benefit, to the dama!e and prejudice of the said owner in the aforesaid amount of )87,......, )hilippine $urrency.H17I &Underscorin! supplied' :he therein accused Carcia ar!ued that since, under the above25uoted 7nformation, she was char!ed of Astafa under "rticle -10, para!raph /&a' of the 3evised )enal $ode, it was error for the appellate court to affirm her conviction by the trial court under "rticle -10, para!raph /&d'.

:he $ourt in +arcia held that there is (no basis for HherI to conclude that she was convicted under "rticle -10, para!raph /&d',( but that (HeIven supposin! that the trial court apparently discussed estafa under "rticle -10, para!raph /&d', it was only pointin! out the absurdity of HCarcia4sI ar!ument that she could not be held liable under "rticle -10 para!raph /&d' as she was

not the drawer of the therein involved chec+s.( 3eliance on +arcia is thus misplaced.

7n the case at bar, as priorly stated, petitioner was char!ed under para!raph /&d', but there is no evidence that petitioner received notice of dishonor of all, e#cept one &"llied Ban+ $hec+ *o. 71...,/ for )71,10,', of the 5uestioned chec+s. 8ence, with respect to all but one of the chec+s, the prima facie presumption of +nowled!e of insufficiency of funds did not arise.

:his leaves it unnecessary to pass on the evidence for the defense. Suffice it to state that petitioner4s defenses of !ood faith and lac+ of criminal intent, defenses to amalum in se li+e Astafa, are not difficult to credit. For, on notice of the lac+ of sufficient funds in her ban+ account, to cover the "llied Ban+ chec+, petitioner offered to pay in installment, to which the private complainant a!reed, the amount covered by the said chec+, as well as the others. "s reflected above, the prosecution stipulated that petitioner had made a total payment of )--8,/0., which amount is almost one2third of the total amount of the ten chec+s or more than the amount covered by the )71,10, "llied Ban+ chec+.

7* F7*A, the prosecution havin! failed to establish all the elements of Astafa under "rticle -10, para!raph /&d' under which petitioner

was clearly char!ed, her ac5uittal is in order. :he jud!ment bearin! on her civil liability stands, however.

;HERE1ORE, the petition is partly GRANTE". )etitioner, Coretti <n!, is "$>U7::A% of the crime char!ed for failure of the prosecution to prove her !uilt beyond reasonable doubt. :he decision bearin! on her civil liability is A11IR9E", however.

$osts a!ainst petitioner.

S< <3%A3A%.

Buisumbing" 0inga" Velasco" ,r." and #rion" ,,." concur.

H1I

3ecords, p. 1.

H/I

A#hibit ("(2(6,( id. at 11/2/1/.

H-I

7d. at ,..2,.0.

H,I

7d. at ,./2,.-.

H0I

7d. at ,.0.

H1I

$" rollo" p. 10.

H7I

%ecision of une 11, /..,, penned by $ourt of "ppeals "ssociate ustice =artin S. Billarama, r. with the concurrence of "ssociate

ustices 3e!alado A. =aambon! and 6ucenito *. :a!le, id. at 1,82108.

H8I

7d. at 107.

H9I

7d. at 111211,.

H1.I

7d. at 177.

H11I

Rollo, pp. 72-,.

H1/I

7d. at 11.

H1-I

Vide !eople v.

lmendral, C.3. *o. 1/1./0, uly 1, /..,, ,-- S$3" ,,., ,0.2,01.

17

+arcia v. !eople, ,07 )hil. 71-, 711 &/..-'.

H1,I

C.3. *os. 1.,/-8208, une -, /..,, ,-. S$3" ,-1.

H10I

7d. at ,,9.

H11I

,07 )hil. 71- &/..-'.

H17I

7d. at 7112717.

SA$<*% %7B7S7<* HC.3. *o. 1-91-.. *ovember /7, /../I 3"=<* O. 76US<37<, petitioner, vs. 8<*. $<U3: <F "))A"6S, and :8A ="*76" B"*O7*C $<3)<3":7<*, respondents. %A$7S7<* >U7SU=B7*C, .9

:his petition for review see+s to reverse the decisionH1I promul!ated on anuary /8, 1999 by the $ourt of "ppeals in $"2C.3. $B *o. ,79,/, affirmin! the decision of the then $ourt of First 7nstance of 3iDal, Branch QB &now the 3e!ional :rial $ourt of =a+ati, Branch 1-8' dismissin! $ivil $ase *o. ,-9.7, for dama!es. :he facts as summariDed by the $ourt of "ppeals are as follows9 )etitioner is a prominent businessman who, at the time material to this case, was the =ana!in! %irector of =ultinational 7nvestment Bancorporation and the $hairman andLor )resident of several other corporations. 8e was a depositor in !ood standin! of respondent ban+, the =anila Ban+in! $orporation, under current $hec+in! "ccount *o. .12.9.-72.. "s he was then runnin! about /. corporations, and was !oin! out of the country a number of times, petitioner entrusted to his secretary, OatherineH/I A. Au!enio, his credit cards and his chec+boo+ with blan+ chec+s. 7t was also Au!enio who verified and reconciled the statements of said chec+in! account.H-I Between the dates September 0, 198. and anuary /-, 1981, Au!enio was able to encash and deposit to her personal account about seventeen &17' chec+s drawn a!ainst the account of the petitioner at the respondent ban+, with an a!!re!ate amount of )119,1-,.-,. )etitioner did not bother to chec+ his statement of account until a business partner apprised him that he saw Au!enio use his credit cards. )etitioner fired Au!enio immediately, and instituted a criminal action a!ainst her for estafa thru falsification before the <ffice of the )rovincial Fiscal of 3iDal. )rivate respondent, throu!h an affidavit e#ecuted by its employee, =r. %ante 3aDon, also lod!ed a complaint for estafa thru falsification of commercial documents a!ainst Au!enio on the basis of petitionerKs statement that his si!natures in the chec+s were for!ed.H,I =r. 3aDonKs affidavit states9 :hat 7 have e#amined and scrutiniDed the followin! chec+s in accordance with prescribed verification procedures with utmost care and dili!ence by comparin! the si!natures affi#ed thereat a!ainst the specimen si!natures of =r. 3amon O. 7lusorio which we have on file at our said office on such dates, ### :hat the aforementioned chec+s were amon! those issued by =anilaban+ in favor of its client =3. 3"=<* O. 76US<37<,W :hat the same were personally encashed by O":8A37*A A. AS:AB"*, an e#ecutive secretary of =3. 3"=<* O. 76US<37< in said 7nvestment $orporation; :hat 7 have met and +nown her as O":8A37*A A. AS:AB"* the attendin! verifier when she personally encashed the above2mentioned chec+s at our said office; :hat =3. 3"=<* O. 76US<37< e#ecuted an affidavit e#pressly disownin! his si!nature appearin! on the chec+s further alle!ed to have not authoriDed the issuance and encashment of the same.WH0I )etitioner then re5uested the respondent ban+ to credit bac+ and restore to its account the value of the chec+s which were wron!fully encashed but respondent ban+ refused. 8ence, petitioner filed the instant case.H1I "t the trial, petitioner testified on his own behalf, attestin! to the truth of the circumstances as narrated above, and how he discovered the alle!ed for!eries. Several employees of =anila Ban+ were also called to the witness stand as hostile witnesses. :hey testified that it is the ban+Ks standard operatin! procedure that whenever a chec+ is presented for encashment or clearin!, the si!nature on the chec+ is first verified a!ainst the specimen si!nature cards on file with the ban+. =anila Ban+ also sou!ht the e#pertise of the *ational Bureau of 7nvesti!ation &*B7' in determinin! the !enuineness of the si!natures appearin! on the chec+s. 8owever, in a letter dated =arch /0, 1987, the *B7 informed the trial court that they could not conduct the desired e#amination for the reason that the standard specimens submitted were not sufficient for purposes of renderin! a definitive opinion. :he *B7 then su!!ested that petitioner be as+ed to submit seven &7' or more additional standard si!natures e#ecuted before or about, and immediately after the dates of the 5uestioned chec+s. )etitioner, however, failed to comply with this re5uest. "fter evaluatin! the evidence on both sides, the court a 5uo rendered jud!ment on =ay 1/, 199, with the followin! dispositive portion9 @8A3AF<3A, findin! no sufficient basis for plaintiff4s cause herein a!ainst defendant ban+, in the li!ht of the fore!oin! considerations and established facts, this case would have to be, as it is hereby %7S=7SSA%. %efendantKs counterclaim is li+ewise %7S=7SSA% for lac+ of sufficient basis. S< <3%A3A%.H7I "!!rieved, petitioner elevated the case to the $ourt of "ppeals by way of a petition for review but without success. :he appellate court held that petitionerKs own ne!li!ence was the pro#imate cause of his loss. :he appellate court disposed as follows9 @8A3AF<3A, the jud!ment appealed from is "FF73=A%. $osts a!ainst the appellant. S< <3%A3A%.H8I Before us, petitioner ascribes the followin! errors to the $ourt of "ppeals9 ". :8A $<U3: <F "))A"6S A33A% 7* *<: 8<6%7*C :8": :8A 3AS)<*%A*: B"*O 7S AS:<))A% F3<= 3"7S7*C :8A %AFA*SA :8": :8A3A @"S *< F<3CA3G <F :8A S7C*":U3AS <F :8A )A:7:7<*A3 7* :8A $8A$O BA$"USA :8A 3AS)<*%A*: F76A% " $37=7*"6 $<=)6"7*: F<3 AS:"F" :83U F"6S7F7$":7<* <F $<==A3$7"6 %<$U=A*:S "C"7*S: O":8A37*A AUCA*7< US7*C :8A "FF7%"B7: <F )A:7:7<*A3 S:":7*C :8": 87S S7C*":U3AS @A3A F<3CA% "S )"3: <F :8A "FF7%"B7:2$<=)6"7*:.H9I B. :8A $<U3: <F "))A"6S A33A% 7* *<: "))6G7*C SA$. /-, *AC<:7"B6A 7*S:3U=A*:S 6"@.H1.I $. :8A $<U3: <F "))A"6S A33A% 7* *<: 8<6%7*C :8A BU3%A* <F )3<<F 7S @7:8 :8A 3AS)<*%A*: B"*O :< )3<BA :8A %UA %767CA*$A :< )3ABA*: %"="CA, :< :8A )A:7:7<*A3, "*% :8": 7: @"S *<: *AC67CA*: 7* :8A SA6A$:7<* "*% SU)A3B7S7<* <F 7:S A=)6<GAAS.H11I %. :8A $<U3: <F "))A"6S A33A% 7* *<: 8<6%7*C :8": 3AS)<*%A*: B"*O S8<U6% BA"3 :8A 6<SS, "*% S8<U6% BA ="%A :< )"G )A:7:7<*A3, @7:8 3A$<U3SA "C"7*S: O":8A37*A AUCA*7< AS:AB"*.H1/I Assentially the issues in this case are9 &1' whether or not petitioner has a cause of action a!ainst private respondent; and &/' whether or not private respondent, in filin! an estafa case a!ainst petitionerKs secretary, is barred from raisin! the defense that the fact of for!ery was not established. )etitioner contends that =anila Ban+ is liable for dama!es for its ne!li!ence in failin! to detect the discrepant chec+s. 8e adds that as a !eneral rule a ban+ which has obtained possession of a chec+ upon an unauthoriDed or for!ed endorsement of the payeeKs si!nature and which collects the amount of the chec+ from the drawee is liable for the proceeds thereof to the payee. )etitioner invo+es the doctrine of estoppel, sayin! that havin! itself instituted a for!ery case a!ainst Au!enio, =anila Ban+ is now estopped from assertin! that the fact of for!ery was never proven. For its part, =anila Ban+ contends that respondent appellate court did not depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedin!s, hence there is no reason for the reversal of its rulin!. =anila Ban+ additionally points out that Section /-H1-I of the *e!otiable 7nstruments 6aw is inapplicable, considerin! that the fact of for!ery was never proven. 6astly, the ban+ ne!ates petitionerKs claim of estoppel.H1,I <n the first issue, we find that petitioner has no cause of action a!ainst =anila Ban+. :o be entitled to dama!es, petitioner has the burden of provin! ne!li!ence on the part of the ban+ for failure to detect the discrepancy in the si!natures on the chec+s. 7t is

incumbent upon petitioner to establish the fact of for!ery, i.e., by submittin! his specimen si!natures and comparin! them with those on the 5uestioned chec+s. $uriously thou!h, petitioner failed to submit additional specimen si!natures as re5uested by the *ational Bureau of 7nvesti!ation from which to draw a conclusive findin! re!ardin! for!ery. :he $ourt of "ppeals found that petitioner, by his own inaction, was precluded from settin! up for!ery. Said the appellate court9 @e cannot fault the court a 5uo for such declaration, considerin! that the plaintiffKs evidence on the alle!ed for!ery is not convincin! enou!h. :he burden to prove for!ery was upon the plaintiff, which burden he failed to dischar!e. "side from his own testimony, the appellant presented no other evidence to prove the fact of for!ery. 8e did not even submit his own specimen si!natures, ta+en on or about the date of the 5uestioned chec+s, for e#amination and comparison with those of the subject chec+s. <n the other hand, the appellee presented specimen si!nature cards of the appellant, ta+en at various years, namely, in 1971, 1979 and 1981 &A#hibits M1N, M/N, M-N and M7N', showin! variances in the appellantKs un5uestioned si!natures. :he evidence further shows that the appellee, as soon as it was informed by the appellant about his 5uestioned si!natures, sou!ht to borrow the 5uestioned chec+s from the appellant for purposes of analysis and e#amination &A#hibit M9N', but the same was denied by the appellant. 7t was also the former which sou!ht the assistance of the *B7 for an e#pert analysis of the si!natures on the 5uestioned chec+s, but the same was unsuccessful for lac+ of sufficient specimen si!natures.H10I =oreover, petitionerKs contention that =anila Ban+ was remiss in the e#ercise of its duty as drawee lac+s factual basis. $onsistently, the $" and the 3:$ found that =anila Ban+ employees e#ercised due dili!ence in cashin! the chec+s. :he ban+Ks employees in the present case did not have a hint as to Au!enioKs modus operandi because she was a re!ular customer of the ban+, havin! been desi!nated by petitioner himself to transact in his behalf. "ccordin! to the appellate court, the employees of the ban+ e#ercised due dili!ence in the performance of their duties. :hus, it found that9 :he evidence on both sides indicates that :=B$Ks employees e#ercised due dili!ence before encashin! the chec+s. 7ts verifiers first verified the drawerKs si!natures thereon as a!ainst his specimen si!nature cards, and when in doubt, the verifier went further, such as by referrin! to a more e#perienced verifier for further verification. 7n some instances the verifier made a confirmation by callin! the depositor by phone. 7t is only after ta+in! such precautionary measures that the subject chec+s were !iven to the teller for payment. <f course it is possible that the verifiers of :=B$ mi!ht have made a mista+e in failin! to detect any for!ery 22 if indeed there was. 8owever, a mista+e is not e5uivalent to ne!li!ence if they were honest mista+es. 7n the instant case, we believe and so hold that if there were mista+es, the same were not deliberate, since the ban+ too+ all the precautions.H11I "s borne by the records, it was petitioner, not the ban+, who was ne!li!ent. *e!li!ence is the omission to do somethin! which a reasonable man, !uided by those considerations which ordinarily re!ulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doin! of somethin! which a prudent and reasonable man would do.H17I 7n the present case, it appears that petitioner accorded his secretary unusual de!ree of trust and unrestricted access to his credit cards, passboo+s, chec+ boo+s, ban+ statements, includin! custody and possession of cancelled chec+s and reconciliation of accounts. Said the $ourt of "ppeals on this matter9 =oreover, the appellant had introduced his secretary to the ban+ for purposes of reconciliation of his account, throu!h a letter dated uly 1,, 198. &A#hibit M8N'. :hus, the said secretary became a familiar fi!ure in the ban+. @hat is worse, whenever the ban+ verifiers call the office of the appellant, it is the same secretary who answers and confirms the chec+s. :he trouble is, the appellant had put so much trust and confidence in the said secretary, by entrustin! not only his credit cards with her but also his chec+boo+ with blan+ chec+s. 8e also entrusted to her the verification and reconciliation of his account. Further addin! to his injury was the fact that while the ban+ was sendin! him the monthly Statements of "ccounts, he was not personally chec+in! the same. 8is testimony did not indicate that he was out of the country durin! the period covered by the chec+s. :hus, he had all the opportunities to verify his account as well as the cancelled chec+s issued thereunder 22 month after month. But he did not, until his partner as+ed him whether he had entrusted his credit card to his secretary because the said partner had seen her use the same. 7t was only then that he was minded to verify the records of his account. H18I :he abovecited findin!s are bindin! upon the reviewin! court. @e stress the rule that the factual findin!s of a trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are bindin! upon usH19I and entitled to utmost respectH/.I and even finality. @e find no palpable error that would warrant a reversal of the appellate courtKs assessment of facts anchored upon the evidence on record. )etitionerKs failure to e#amine his ban+ statements appears as the pro#imate cause of his own dama!e. )ro#imate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continuous se5uence, unbro+en by any efficient intervenin! cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.H/1I 7n the instant case, the ban+ was not shown to be remiss in its duty of sendin! monthly ban+ statements to petitioner so that any error or discrepancy in the entries therein could be brou!ht to the ban+Ks attention at the earliest opportunity. But, petitioner failed to e#amine these ban+ statements not because he was prevented by some cause in not doin! so, but because he did not pay sufficient attention to the matter. 8ad he done so, he could have been alerted to any anomaly committed a!ainst him. 7n other words, petitioner had sufficient opportunity to prevent or detect any misappropriation by his secretary had he only reviewed the status of his accounts based on the ban+ statements sent to him re!ularly. 7n view of "rticle /179 of the *ew $ivil $ode,H//I when the plaintiffKs own ne!li!ence was the immediate and pro#imate cause of his injury, no recovery could be had for dama!es. )etitioner further contends that under Section /- of the *e!otiable 7nstruments 6aw a for!ed chec+ is inoperative, and that =anila Ban+ had no authority to pay the for!ed chec+s. :rue, it is a rule that when a si!nature is for!ed or made without the authority of the person whose si!nature it purports to be, the chec+ is wholly inoperative. *o ri!ht to retain the instrument, or to !ive a dischar!e therefor, or to enforce payment thereof a!ainst any party, can be ac5uired throu!h or under such si!nature. 8owever, the rule does provide for an e#ception, namely9 Munless the party a!ainst whom it is sou!ht to enforce such ri!ht is precluded from settin! up the for!ery or want of authority.N 7n the instant case, it is the e#ception that applies. 7n our view, petitioner is precluded from settin! up the for!ery, assumin! there is for!ery, due to his own ne!li!ence in entrustin! to his secretary his credit cards and chec+boo+ includin! the verification of his statements of account. )etitionerKs reliance on "ssociated Ban+ vs. $ourt of "ppealsH/-I and )hilippine Ban+ of $ommerce vs. $"H/,I to buttress his contention that respondent =anila Ban+ as the collectin! or last endorser !enerally suffers the loss because it has the duty to ascertain the !enuineness of all prior endorsements is misplaced. 7n the cited cases, the fact of for!ery was not in issue. 7n the present case, the fact of for!ery was not established with certainty. 7n those cited cases, the collectin! ban+s were held to be ne!li!ent for failin! to observe precautionary measures to detect the for!ery. 7n the case before us, both courts below uniformly found that =anila Ban+Ks personnel dili!ently performed their duties, havin! compared the si!nature in the chec+s from the specimen si!natures on record and satisfied themselves that it was petitionerKs. <n the second issue, the fact that =anila Ban+ had filed a case for estafa a!ainst Au!enio would not estop it from assertin! the fact that for!ery has not been clearly established. )etitioner cannot hold private respondent in estoppel for the latter is not the actual party to the criminal action. 7n a criminal action, the State is the plaintiff, for the commission of a felony is an offense a!ainst the State.H/0I :hus, under Section /, 3ule 11. of the 3ules of $ourt the complaint or information filed in court is re5uired to be brou!ht in the name of the M)eople of the )hilippines.N H/1I Further, as petitioner himself stated in his petition, respondent ban+ filed the estafa case a!ainst Au!enio on the basis of petitionerKs own affidavit,H/7I but without admittin! that he had any personal +nowled!e of the alle!ed for!ery. 7t is, therefore, easy to understand that the filin! of the estafa case by respondent ban+ was a last ditch effort to salva!e its ties with the petitioner as a valuable client, by bolsterin! the estafa case which he filed a!ainst his secretary. "ll told, we find no reversible error that can be ascribed to the $ourt of "ppeals. @8A3AF<3A, the instant petition is %A*7A% for lac+ of merit. :he assailed decision of the $ourt of "ppeals dated anuary /8, 1999 in $"2C.3. $B *o. ,79,/, is "FF73=A%.

$osts a!ainst petitioner. S< <3%A3A%. Bellosillo, "ctin! $. ., &$hairman', =endoDa, "ustria2=artineD, and $allejo, Sr., ., concur. H1I 3ollo, pp. /12-.. H/I "lso spelled as M$atherineN in some parts of the record. H-I 3ollo, p. /1. H,I :S*, <ctober 1, 198-, p. 08. H0I 3ollo, pp. 1.821.9. H1I 7d. at /7. H7I 7bid. H8I 7d. at -.. H9I 7d. at 1.. H1.I 7d. at 1,. H11I 7d. at 10. H1/I 7d. at 17. H1-I Sec. /-. For!ed si!nature, effect of. @hen a si!nature is for!ed or made without the authority of the person whose si!nature it purports to be, it is wholly inoperative, and no ri!ht to retain the instrument, or to !ive a dischar!e therefor, or to enforce payment thereof a!ainst any party thereto, can be ac5uired throu!h or under such si!nature, unless the party a!ainst whom it is sou!ht to enforce such ri!ht is precluded from settin! up the for!ery or want of authority. H1,I 3ollo, p. ,9. H10I 7d. at /8. H11I 7d. at /9. H17I Ban+ of the )hilippine 7slands vs. $ourt of "ppeals, -/1 S$3" 1,1, 107 &/...'. H18I Supra, note 11. H19I 6orenDana vs. )eople, -0- S$3" -91, ,.- &/..1'. H/.I <n! vs. $", /7/ S$3" 7/0, 7-. &1997'. H/1I Supra, note 17 at 109. H//I "rt. /179. @hen the plaintiff4s own ne!li!ence was the immediate and pro#imate cause of his injury, he cannot recover dama!es. W H/-I /0/ S$3" 1/., 1-- &1991'. H/,I /19 S$3" 190, 7.-271. &1997'. H/0I Binay vs. Sandi!anbayan, -11 S$3" 10, 1.. &1999'. H/1I SA$. /. :he complaint or information. P :he complaint or information shall be in writin!, in the name of the )eople of the )hilippines and a!ainst all persons who appear to be responsible for the offense involved. H/7I 3ollo, p. 9. "u!ust 10, 19-, C.3. *o. 62,.9,0 :8A )A<)6A <F :8A )8767))7*A 7S6"*%S, plaintiff2appellee, vs. "*:<*7< "S:U%766<, defendant2appellant. =ariano 3. )adilla for appellant. <ffice of the Solicitor Ceneral 8ilado for appellee. Bic+ers, .9 :his is an appeal from the followin! decision of ud!e )edro :uason in the $ourt of First 7nstance of Ben!uet9 "ntonio "studillo is char!ed with estafa throu!h falsification of commercial documents alle!ed to have been committed as follows9 (:hat on or about the /7th day of =ay, 19--, in the $ity of Ba!iuo, )hilippine 7slands, and within the jurisdiction of this court, the above named accused did with intent to defraud and throu!h misrepresentation, voluntarily, maliciously and feloniously falsify, issue and use )hil. *ational Ban+ $hec+ *o. 1-7.-. by ma+in! it appear in said chec+ as if same had been properly drawn and issued by the =ana!er and :reasurer of the )an!asinan :ransportation $o. and indorsed by ose 3amos, when in truth and in fact said accused "ntonio "studillo well +new that said mana!er and :reasurer of the )an!asinan :ransportation $o. and ose 3amos did not issue or participate in the ma+in!, issuin!, si!nin! and indorsin! said chec+ and by virtue of said falsification, deceit and misrepresentation, said accused "ntonio "studillo was able to cash, obtain and receive the amount of )/0..70 which is the face value of the chec+ from one Oa Satoh of Ba!uio. :he said amount of )/0..70 which is the face value put on the chec+ was appropriated by said accused "ntonio "studillo for his own use and benefit to the prejudice of said Oa Satoh in the said amount of )/0..70.

("ll contrary to law.( @hen his case was tried on <ctober /,, 19--, the accused was assisted by counsel. :he trial was discontinued for the reason that some of the important witnesses for the prosecution were absent. @hen the trial was resumed today, the accused appeared alone and e#pressed his willin!ness to plead !uilty provided the minimum penalty be imposed on him. 8e afterwards said that his attorney had told him to plead !uilty if he were found !uilty by this court in another case &closely related to this one' for malicious mischief. 7t appears from the evidence that the defendant came Ba!uio from =anila on or about the /,th day of "pril, 19--, with Feli# Balencia on a car belon!in! to the latter4s father. Shortly after arrivin! here, the accused, thru the driver of the car named Simeon Eamora, bou!ht two tires from O. Satoh, a!ent in Ba!uio for the Firestone 3ubber $ompany, for )01 and !ave a chec+ drawn on the )hilippine *ational Ban+ for the sum of )/0..70. :he chec+ was accepted and the accused, throu!h Eamora, received not only the two tires but also the chan!e in cash in the sum of )199.70. 7t later turned out that the chec+ was falsified. :his chec+ purported to have been issued by one ose 6. Olar as mana!er of the )an!asinan :ransportation $ompany in favor of one ose 3amos and to have been indorsed by the latter. Olar denied that he had issued that chec+ or that the si!nature appearin! thereon was his. 3amos did not testify as no return of the subpoena with respect him had been made up to the date of the trial. :he testimony of 3amos was not deemed necessary as the falsity of the chec+ was admitted )%01. :he only 5uestion presented for the consideration of the court is whether Eamora received the chec+ the chec+ from "studillo, the accused, and !ave the chan!e to the latter. Upon this point there is the positive and convincin! testimony of both Simeon Eamora and Feli# Balencia, which the defendant barely made any attempt to deny. "side from this testimony there is the fact that while "studillo was under detention in the city jail of Ba!uio for this offense, he detached from the record of the case in the justice of the peace court the chec+ which he was accused of falsifyin! and concealed or destroyed it. "studillo has been char!ed with malicious mischief for this act and found !uilty by this court. :he statements of the accused in the course of the trial re!ardin! his desire to plead !uilty upon certain conditions is another proof of his !uilt. :he accused, it may be noted, is an educated man and, accordin! to his testimony, was formerly the publisher and editor of the ()hilippine =otor 3eview(. :he court therefore finds the defendant !uilty of the comple# crime of estafa committed throu!h the falsification of a commercia7 document and, in accordance with article ,8 of the 3evised )enal $ode, he is sentenced to four &,' years, nine &9' months and eleven &11' days of prision correccional, with the accessories provided by law, to pay Oa Satoh the sum of )/0..70 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of the insolvency, and to pay the costs. "ppellant4s attorney de oficio alle!es that the lower court erred in the findin! the accused !uilty f the crime of estafa by means of the falsification of a mercantile document, althou!h not all the facts constitutin! the crime alle!ed in the information were proved. 7t is the contention of the attorney for the defendant that the automobile tires in 5uestion were not used on the automobile of Feli# Balencia, r., until he and the defendant had returned to =anila, and that the testimony of Simeon Eamora and Feli# Balencia, r., is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant delivered the chec+ in 5uestion to Eamora to be cashed when he bou!ht the tires, or that the difference between the amount of the chec+ and the price of the tires was delivered to the defendant. 7n our opinion the testimony of Eamora and Balencia duly proves that the defendant ordered Simeon Eamora to buy two tires and !ave him the chec+ in 5uestion to be cashed, and left him in front of the store of 7wama; that 7wama did not have the tires, and su!!ested that Eamora !o to the store of Oa Satoh, the offended party; that Eamora bou!ht the tires in 5uestion for )01 from Satoh, delivered to him the chec+ for )/0..70, and received in cash the difference between the amount of the chec+ and the cost of the tires, or )199.70; that the tires were delivered to Eamora at the Ballejo 8otel, where the defendant and Balencia were stayin!; that Balencia returned to the hotel ahead of the defendant, and Eamora handed the )199.70 to Balencia, who delivered it in turn to the defendant when he returned to the hotel. :he testimony of these witnesses is corroborated by the offer of the defendant prior to and durin! the trial to plead !uilty to a char!e of simple estafa. :he only difficulty which the case presents is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the defendant for the falsification of the chec+ in 5uestion. @e are constrained to thin+ that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain that findin!. :he chec+ in 5uestion, *o. 1-7.-. of the )hilippine *ational Ban+, purported to be issued by ose 6. Olar as mana!er of the )an!asinan :ransportation $ompany in favor of ose 3amos. ose 6. Olar testified that no such chec+ had been issued by him, and that his company was not usin! chec+s of that series. ose 3amos, in whose favor the chec+ was drawn, and by whom the chee+ purported to be indorsed, was not presented as a witness. *o evidence was presented to prove that the chec+ in 5uestion was in the handwritin! of the defendant. :he chec+ could not be e#hibited at the trial, because it disappeared from the record while the case was pendin! in the justice of the peace court c/ -:3$n. :he Solicitor2Ceneral states in his brief that accordin! to the testimony of ose 6. Olar the defendant obtained9 the chec+ boo+, from which the chec+ in 5uestion was ta+en, from the )hilippine *ational Ban+ by falsifyin! the si!nature of Olar and by orderin! a seal similar to that of the )an!asinan :ransportation $o., and ar!ues that this testimony, coupled with the fact that the defendant cashed the for!ed chec+, is sufficient proof of his !uilt of the for!ery. "n e#amination of the record, however, does not seem to bear out this statement. 7t appears that the chec+ in 5uestion was not included amon! the chec+s to which Olar was referrin!. 8is testimony related to certain for!ed chec+s amountin! to a little more than )8.. which were char!ed to the current account of the )an!asinan :ransportation $ompany with the )hilippine *ational Ban+. 7t was then found that said chec+s had not been issued by the )an!asinan :ransportation $ompany. @hen the chec+ in 5uestion was described to the witness, he stated that he had never seen it; that the amount thereof had not been deducted from the current account of the )an!asinan :ransportation $ompany; and that he had never heard of the chec+ in 5uestion until he was subpoenaed as a witness in this case &pp. 7 and 8, steno. record'. :he Solicitor2Ceneral cites in support of his contention )eople vs. %e 6ara &,0 )hil. 70,' and )eople vs. %omin!o &,9 )hil. /8'. :he facts of those two cases are materially different from the facts of the present case, and the decisions in those cases are not in the case at bar. 7n the %e 6ara case a for!ed chec+, dated "pril 0, 19/- and drawn to the order of . U. 6im for )8,70., and another on "pril 1 for )0,1.., and a third on "pril 1/ for )9,8.., were presented to the ban+ by the defendant on the respective dates of issue, and the amount thereof paid by the ban+ to the defendant on the purported indorsement of the chec+s by . U. 6im to the defendant. :he defendant admitted the receipt of all the money evidenced by the for!ed chec+s, and as a defense said that he was in the employ of . U. 6im, who indorsed and !ave the chec+s to him personally, with the instructions to cash them at the ban+, and that he either delivered the money to 6im personally or to one Suaco upon the written order of 6im. 3ejectin! defendant4s e#planation as unworthy of credit, this court held that the facts brou!ht the case within the rule laid down in the case of the United States vs. $astillo &1 )hil. ,0-, ,00', where it was said9 For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to hold, and we do not hold, that the mere fact that the accused uttered the chec+ in 5uestion is proof of the fact that he also for!ed it or caused it to be for!ed, but we do hold that the utterance of such an instrument, when une#plained, is stron! evidence tendin! to establish the fact that the utterer either himself for!ed the instrument or caused it to be for!ed, and that this evidence, ta+en to!ether with the further evidence set out above and brou!ht out on the trial of the case, establishes the !uilt of the accused of the crime with which he was char!ed beyond a reasonable doubt F%=Q%.

:he evidence in the $astillo case showed that the blan+ upon which the for!ed chec+ was written was stolen from a boo+ of blan+ chec+s between the hours of 1/ noon on the 1st of %ecember, 19.- and 11 a. m. of the /nd of %ecember, 19.- when the chec+ was presented for payment; that this blan+ chec+ boo+ was +ept in a drawer in the office of ames . @at+ins, by whom the chec+ was purported to be drawn, and that the defendant was one of three cler+s employed by @at+ins in his office; that the defendant was in the office on the evenin! of %ecember 1st, and he loc+ed the office after all the other cler+s had !one. :he defendant testified that he had never seen the for!ed chec+ prior to the trial; that he was not at the business place of 6im )onso, who cashed the chec+ on %ecember /, 19.-; and that he never received the proceeds of the chec+. :he trial court found, however, that defendant4s statements were false, and convicted him of +nowin!ly usin! with intent to !ain a falsified mercantile document, but this court reversed the jud!ment and convicted the appellant of the crime of falsification of a mercantile instrument. 7n the %omin!o case it appears that under the prete#t of tryin! to find a purchaser for a fishpond belon!in! to the estates of two deceased sisters, the defendant obtained from the administrator the possession of the certificate of title on the condition that she should return it the ne#t day. She failed to return the certificate, and shortly afterwards a deed of sale of the fishpond was e#ecuted by two women that represented themselves to be the re!istered owners. :he for!ed deed and the certificate of title were presented to the re!ister of deeds, who cancelled the ori!inal certificate of title and issued a new certificate in the name of the vendee. "t the trial the defendant denied havin! received the ori!inal certificate of title from the administrator and offered no further e#planation. :his court held that the evidence was conclusive that the defendant had obtained possession of the certificate as alle!ed in the information; that the crime could not have been committed if the perpetrators had not been in possession of the certificate of title; that not havin! offered any e#planation as to what she did with the certificate, the position of the appellant was analo!ous to that of a person who immediately after a larceny has been committed is found in possession of the stolen !oods and offers no e#planation, and that the possession of the certificate of title bein! one of the necessary means of committin! the crime in 5uestion, she was !uilty as principal b"55i. 7n the present case the defendant denied havin! the for!ed chec+ in his possession, and as the testimony of ose 6. Olar does not refer to the chec+ in 5uestion, there is nothin! in the record to show how the defendant obtained possession of the chec+ id>S##8. :he defendant undoubtedly +new the chec+ in 5uestion to be false. 7f he had believed it to be authentic, he would not have destroyed it after the complaint was filed, as the evidence shows he did, or denied ever havin! it in his possession. 7s the fact that the accused uttered the chec+ in 5uestion, +nowin! it to be false, proof that he for!ed it or caused it to be for!ed? @e thin+ it is not. :he decisions cited do not !o that far, and this is the answer !iven in @harton4s $riminal 6aw &vol. 1, par. 7/1', where it is said9 %oes the utterin! of a for!ed instrument by a particular person justify a jury in convictin! such a person of for!ery? :his 5uestion, if na+edly put, must, li+e the +indred ore as to the proof lacerny by evidence of possession of stolen !oods, be answered in the ne!ative. :he defendant is presumed to be innocent until otherwise proved. 7n larceny this presumption is overcome by proof that the possession is so recent that it becomes difficult to conceive how the defendant could have !ot the property without bein! in some way concerned in the stealin!. So it is with the utterin!. :he utterin! may be so closely connected in time with the for!in!, the utterer may be proved to have such capacity for for!in!, or such close connection with the for!ers that it becomes, when so accomplished, probable of complicity in the for!ery. 7n the $astillo case the utterin! was so closely connected time with the for!in!, and the utterer was proved to have such capacity for for!in! as to constitute probable proof of complicity in the for!ery. :he for!ery in the %omin!o case could not have been accomplished without ma+in! use of the certificate of title that was in the possession of the defendant e6d*@v."f5. 7n the %e 6ara case, althou!h some of the lan!ua!e used mi!ht lead one to believe that the writer of the opinion re!arded the mere utterin! of the for!ed chec+ as proof of their falsification, the conviction of the defendant does not rest upon that fact alone, because at least one of the circumstances mentioned by @harton as constitutin! probable proof of the utterer4s complicity in the for!ery was present. :he utterin! was closely connected in time with the for!in!. :he application for the chec+ boo+ was received by the )hilippine *ational Ban+ on "pril -rd. :he chec+s, which were issued on "pril 0th, 1th, and 1/th, and purported to be indorsed by the payee to the defendant, were promptly cashed by the defendant at the ban+. :his court found that the defendant had confederates, and that one of them was an employee of the ban+. :he defendant claimed that he was employed by . U. 6im, the person in whose favor the chec+s were drawn; that 6im, who was stayin! at the 8otel de France in =anila, delivered the chec+s to him, with instructions to cash them and brin! bac+ the money. 7f that be true, it shows that the defendant had a close connection with the for!er of the chec+s, if not an opportunity of for!in! them himself. 7n the case at bar none of the circumstances mentioned by @harton as showin! the utterer4s complicity in the for!ery is present. "s already pointed out, the evidence does not show how or when the defendant came into the possession of the chec+ in 5uestion, the date of which was not alle!ed in the information or proved at the trial. "rticle 17/ of the 3evised )enal $ode reads as follows9 "3:. 17/. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents.:he penalty of prision correccional in its medium and ma#imum periods and a fine of not more than 0,... pesos shall be imposed upon; 1. "ny private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the ne#t precedin! article in any public or official document or letter of e#chan!e or any other +ind of commercial document, and /. "ny person who, to the dama!e of a third party, or with the intent to cause such dama!e, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the ne#t precedin! article. "ny person who shall +nowin!ly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceedin! or to the dama!e of another or who, with the intent to cause such dama!e, shall use any of the false documents embraced in the ne#t precedin! article or in any of the fore!oin! subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty ne#t lower in de!ree. :he acts of the defendant constitute a violation of the second para!raph under *o. / of the fore!oin! article, because the defendant +nowin!ly made use of the false document in 5uestion to the dama!e of the offended party. :he penalty applicable to the offense committed by the defendant is arresto mayor in its ma#imum de!ree to prision correccional in its minimum de!ree, and there bein! present no a!!ravatin! or miti!atin! circumstance the defendant is sentenced to suffer one year and 8 months of prision correccional, and to indemnify the offended party in the sum of )/0..70, with the correspondin! subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and in accordance with "ct *o. ,1.- the minimum sentence, of the defendant is fi#ed at four months of arresto mayor. "s thus modified, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with the costs a!ainst the appellant. "vancea, $. ., Street, "bad Santos and %iaD, ., concur. .