G.R. No.

L-2516

September 25, 1950

ANG TEK LIAN, petitioner, vs. THE COURT O A!!EALS, respondent. Laurel, Sabido, Almario and Laurel for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Solicitor Manuel Tomacru for respondent. "ENG#ON, J.: For having issued a rubber check, Ang Tek Lian was convicted of estafa in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict. It appears that, knowing he had no funds therefor, Ang Tek Lian drew on aturda!, "ovember #$, #%&$, the check '(hibits A upon the China )anking Corporation for the sum of *&,+++, pa!able to the order of ,cash,. -e delivered it to Lee -ua -ong in e(change for mone! which the latter handed in act. .n "ovember #/, #%&$, the ne(t business da!, the check was presented b! Lee -ua -ong to the drawee bank for pa!ment, but it was dishonored for insufficienc! of funds, the balance of the deposit of Ang Tek Lian on both dates being *001 onl!. The Court of Appeals believed the version of Lee -uan -ong who testified that ,on "ovember #$, #%&$, appellant went to his 2complainant3s4 office, at #5#6 -erran, *aco, Manila, and asked him to e(change '(hibit A 7 which he 2appellant4 then brought with him 7 with cash alleging that he needed badl! the sum of *&,+++ represented b! the check, but could not withdraw it from the bank, it being then alread! closed8 that in view of this re9uest and rel!ing upon appellant3s assurance that he had sufficient funds in the blank to meet '(hibit A, and because the! used to borrow mone! from each other, even before the war, and appellant owns a hotel and restaurant known as the "orth )a! -otel, said complainant delivered to him, on the same date, the sum of *&,+++ in cash8 that despite repeated efforts to notif! him that the check had been dishonored b! the bank, appellant could not be located an!:where, until he was summoned in the Cit! Fiscal3s .ffice in view of the complaint for estafa filed in connection therewith8 and that appellant has not paid as !et the amount of the check, or an! part thereof., Inasmuch as the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final, the onl! 9uestion of law for decision is whether under the facts found, estafa had been accomplished. Article 0#1, paragraph 2d4, subsection 5 of the ;evised *enal Code, punishes swindling committed ,)! post dating a check, or issuing such check in pa!ment of an obligation the offender knowing that at the time he had no funds in the bank, or the funds deposited b! him in the bank were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check, and without informing the pa!ee of such circumstances,. <e believe that under this provision of law Ang Tek Lian was properl! held liable. In this connection, it must be stated that, as e(plained in !eople "s. Fernande 21% *hil., $#14, estafa is committed b! issuing either a postdated check or an ordinar! check to accomplish the deceit. It is argued, however, that as the check had been made pa!able to ,cash, and had not been endorsed b! Ang Tek Lian, the defendant is not guilt! of the offense charged. )ased on the proposition that ,b! uniform practice of all banks in the *hilippines a check so drawn is invariabl! dishonored,, the following line of reasoning is advanced in support of the argument= . . . <hen, therefore, he 2the offended part! 4 accepted the check 2'(hibit A4 from the appellant, he did so with full knowledge that it would be dishonored upon presentment. In that sense, the appellant could not be said to have acted fraudulentl! because the complainant, in so accepting the check as it was drawn, must be considered, b! ever! rational consideration, to have done so full! aware of the risk he was running thereb!., 2)rief for the appellant, p. ##.4 <e are not aware of the uniformit! of such practice. Instances have undoubtedl! occurred wherein the )ank re9uired the indorsement of the drawer before honoring a check pa!able to ,cash., )ut cases there are too, where no such re9uirement had been made . It depends upon the circumstances of each transaction. >nder the "egotiable Instruments Law 2sec. % ? d@, a check drawn pa!able to the order of ,cash, is a check pa!able to bearer, and the bank ma! pa! it to the person presenting it for pa!ment without the drawer3s indorsement. A check pa!able to the order of cash is a bearer instrument. )acal "s. "ational Cit! )ank of "ew Aork 2#%004, #&$ Misc., 6058 5$5 ". A. ., /0%8 Clear! "s. Be )eck *late Class Co. 2#%+64, 1& Misc., 1068 #+& ". A. ., /0#8 Massachusetts )onding D Insurance Co. "s. *ittsburgh *ipe D uppl! Co. 2Te(. Civ. App., #%0%4, #01 . <. 25d4, /#/. See also -. Cook D on "s. Mood! 2#%#$4, #6 Ca. App., &$18 /6 . '., 6#0. <here a check is made pa!able to the order of ,cash,, the word cash ,does not purport to be the name of an! person,, and hence the instrument is pa!able to bearer. The drawee bank need not obtain an! indorsement of the check, but ma! pa! it to the person presenting it without an! indorsement. . . . 2Eollmann, )anks and )anking, *ermanent 'dition, Fol. $, p. &%&.4 .f course, if the bank is not sure of the bearer3s identit! or financial solvenc!, it has the right to demand identification and Gor assurance against possible complications, 7 for instance, 2 a4 forger! of drawer3s signature, 2b4 loss of the check b! the rightful owner, 2 c4 raising of the amount pa!able, etc. The bank ma! therefore re9uire, for its protection, that the indorsement of the drawer 7 or of some other person known to it 7 be obtained. )ut where

Ang Tek Lian vs CA

the )ank is satisfied of the identit! and Gor the economic standing of the bearer who tenders the check for collection, it will pa! the instrument without further 9uestion8 and it would incur no liabilit! to the drawer in thus acting. A check pa!able to bearer is authorit! for pa!ment to holder. <here a check is in the ordinar! form, and is pa!able to bearer, so that no indorsement is re9uired, a bank, to which it is presented for pa!ment, need not have the holder identified, and is not negligent in falling to do so. . . . 2Michie on )anks and )anking, *ermanent 'dition, Fol. 1, p. 0&0.4 . . . Conse9uentl!, a drawee bank to which a bearer check is presented for pa!ment need not necessaril! have the holder identified and ordinaril! ma! not be charged with negligence in failing to do so. ee .pinions $C=5 and $C=0 If the bank has no reasonable cause for suspecting an! irregularit!, it will be protected in pa!ing a bearer check, ,no matter what facts unknown to it ma! have occurred prior to the presentment., # Morse, )anks and )anking, sec. 0%0. Although a bank is entitled to pa! the amount of a bearer check without further in9uir!, it is entirel! reasonable for the bank to insist that holder give satisfactor! proof of his identit!. . . . 2*aton3s Bigest, Fol. I, p. #+/%.4 An!wa!, it is significant, and conclusive, that the form of the check '(hibit A was totall! unconnected with its dishonor. The Court of Appeals declared that it was returned unsatisfied because the dra#er had insufficient funds 7 not because the drawer3s indorsement was lacking. <herefore, there being no 9uestion as to the correctness of the penalt! imposed on the appellant, the writ of certiorari is denied and the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereb! affirmed, with costs. Moran, $. %., O aeta, !aras, !ablo, Tuason, and &e'es, %%., concur.

Ang Tek Lian vs CA