Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
City of Baguio

BAGUIO VENDORS SAVINGS

AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC.
COMPLAINANT,
NPS NO.: I-17-INV-17-2079
For: ESTAFA and VIOLATION
-versus-
OF B.P. BLG. 22
BABY CORAZON TORRES
RESPONDENT.

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
This resolves to reconsider the Resolution of this office dated
October 25, 2017 and to issue an Amended Resolution finding
probable cause to the instant charge against herein respondent Baby
Corazon Torres for the Crime of Estafa defined and Penalized under
Section 315 paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code and Violation
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 by the complainant Baguio Vendors
Savings and Loan Association, Inc.
That sometime on May 23, 2006, Baby Corazon
Torres applied and obtained a loan in the amount of Php
81,000.00 for a term of 12 months to pay which will
become demandable on May 18, 2017 at an interest rate
of 25% per anum. Thus, Baby Corazon Torres received
the net proceeds of the loan in the amount of Php
78,165.00 after issuing a Maybank check bearing Check
No. 0000000034 dated May 18, 2017 amounting to Php
81,000.00 in favor of Baguio Savings and Loan
Association, Inc. as a supposed payment for the loan
accommodation.
Thereafter, when the check was deposited with the
bank, the same was dishonored by the bank due to the
reason Account Closed. A notice of dishonor was send
to Baby Corazon Torres and a demand was made for her
to make good of the check within 15 days from receipt
thereof but she ignored and continues refusing to do so.
A ComplaintAffidavit was executed by the
respondent to contest the charges against her. Said
complaint-affidavit was included in her Motion for
 reconsideration of the Resolution dated October 25, 2017.
The respondent alleged that the issuance in favor of
BVSLAI a Maybank Check No. 0000000034 dated May
18, 2017 in the amount of Php 81,000.00 as supposed
payment for the loan accommodation of Php 81,0000.00,
which was extended to her. This act established that the
complainant itself admitted that the subject check was
issued by the Respondent, in payment of a pre-existing
obligation, that is, the loan extended to the latter by
complainant. Thus, in her defense, there is no false
pretense or fraudulent at if a postdated check is issued in
payment of a pre-existing obligation.
It appears, based on the forgoing, that the acts committed by
respondent Baby Corazon Torres qualifies to establish the existence
of probable cause for the crime under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of
the Revised Penal Code by means of fraudulent acts. It is provided
under said provision that:

Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code lists the ways

by which estafa may be committed, which includes:

Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud

another x x x

xxxx

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or

fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud:

(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to

possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means
of other similar deceits.1

xxxx

The elements of the felony are as follows:

1. That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act

or fraudulent means.
2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to
or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.

1
Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code
 3. That the offended party must have relied on the
false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means,
that is, he was induced to part with his money or
property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act,
or fraudulent means.

4. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered

damage.2

xxxx

The uncontroverted evidence brought by the complainant

readily shows that respondent deceived the representatives of
BVSLAI by making false pretense, which was heavily relied upon by
herein complainant, that the check she issued to covered by sufficient
fund by the time it will be presented for payment of her obligation. As
it appears that the check was simultaneously issued by respondent
upon receipt of the proceeds, said acts falls under the purview of the
said crime. Although, the respondent interposed the defense of good
faith that she exerted efforts for the settlement of the obligation and
even paid the entire amount of the dishonored check, still the
issuance of a postdated check with insufficient funds presupposes
the employment of deceit or fraud for possessing false qualification
that said respondent is capable of paying the obligation when at the
time she applied for a loan.
As to the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, it is provided
that:
To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the following essential
elements must be present: (1) the making, drawing, and
issuance of any check to apply for account or for value;
(2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at
the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check
in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent
dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency
of funds or creditor dishonor for the same reason had not
the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to
stop payment.3

The undersigned affirms the earlier Resolution dated October

25, 2017 in the finding of probable cause that the respondent violated
B.P. Blg. 22. Citing the case of Ricaforte v. Jurado, GR No. 154438,
September 5, 2007, the case reiterated under B.P. Blg. 22, mere
issuance of a check that is dishonored gives rise to the presumption
of knowledge on the part of the drawer that he issued the same

2
Elvira Lateo et. al. v. People of the Philippines, GR No. 161651, June 8, 2011
3
Campos v. People of the Philippines
without sufficient funds and is hence punishable. While deceit and
damage are essential elements in estafa, they are not required
in B.P. Blg. 22. It should be noted that the intent of the parties are
immaterial, such as that of respondent. Simply issuing a worthless
check to cover for an obligation is covered under B.P. Blg. 22, as
provided under the present charge when the check was deposited
with the bank, and the same was dishonored by the bank due to the
reason Account Closed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the undersigned denies
the motion for reconsideration filed by the Respondent and affirms its
Resolution dated October 25, 2017 recommending that BABY
CORAZON TORRES be prosecuted for the crime Estafa under Art
315 par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code and for violation of B.P. Blg.
22.
Baguio City, Philippines. 16 November 2017.

BUNQUIN, MA. ANGELICA Z.

SABAOAN, ANGELA LOUISE T.
Associate City Prosecutor
Roll No. 11111
IBP Lifetime No. 000123
MCLE Compliance VI-001234/
19/11/2017/Baguio City
APPROVED:

ELMER MANUEL SAGSAGO

City Prosecutor
Roll No. 31292
IBP Lifetime Receipt No. 733288
MCLE Compliance VI-0006651

Copy Furnished:

Ruperto Guadania, Jr. BVSLAI, 4th Floor, Maharlika Livelihood

Complex, Baguio City
Baby Corazon Torres No. 64, Purok 1, North Sanitary Camp,
Baguio City