G.R. No.

168217 June 27, 2006

JOY LEE RECUERDO, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Joint Decision
1
of the Court of ppea!s
"C# in C$%.R. CR No. &'()*, affir+in, with +odification the decision of the Re,iona! -ria! Court
"R-C# of .a!o!os, Bu!acan in Cri+ina! Cases Nos. &/'0$.$(1, &/'1$.$(1 and &)0/$.$(1 for estafa.
s s2nthesi3ed 42 the appe!!ate court, the antecedents are as fo!!ows5
In Septe+4er 1((1, three separate Cri+ina! Infor+ations char,in, Jo2 6ee Recuerdo of Estafa under
rtic!e *1', para,raph &"d# of the Revised Pena! Code invo!vin, 1) worth!ess 4an7 chec7s were
si+u!taneous!2 fi!ed 42 the Office of the Provincia! Prosecutor of Bu!acan, the accusator2 portions of
which read, thus5
. Si8 "9# :nitrust Chec7s
Cri+. Case No. &/'0$.$(1
;-hat so+eti+e in the second wee7 of Dece+4er, 1((*, in the +unicipa!it2 of .e2caua2an, province
of Bu!acan, Phi!ippines, and within the <urisdiction of this =onora4!e Court, the said accused Jo2 6ee
Recuerdo, with intent to ,ain and 42 +eans of deceit, fa!se pretenses and fraudu!ent +anifestations, and
pretendin, to have sufficient funds with the :nitrust, .a7ati Co++ercia! Center Branch, did then and
there wi!!fu!!2, un!awfu!!2 and fe!onious!2 prepare, draw, +a7e and issue the fo!!owin, postdated
chec7s, to wit5
Chec7 No Date +ount
011*'' pri! ', 1((1 P&&,000.00
011*'9 .a2 ', 1((1 &&,000.00
011*'/ June ', 1((1 &&,000.00
011*') Ju!2 ', 1((1 &&,000.00
011*'( u,ust ', 1((1 &&,000.00
011*90 Septe+4er ', 1((1 &&,000.00
with the tota! a+ount of P1*&,000.00 drawn a,ainst the said 4an7, and de!iver the said chec7s to the
co+p!ainin, witness >o!anda %. ?!oro as pa2+ent for pieces of <ewe!r2 she o4tained fro+ the said
co+p!ainant, 7nowin, fu!!2 we!! at the ti+e the chec7s were issued that her representations were fa!se
for she had no sufficient funds in the said 4an7, so +uch that upon present+ent of the said chec7s with
the said 4an7 for encash+ent, the sa+e were dishonored and refused pa2+ent for havin, 4een drawn
a,ainst an ;ccount C!osed;, and inspite of repeated de+ands to deposit with the said 4an7 the a+ount
of P1*&,000.00, the said accused fai!ed and refused to do so, to the da+a,e and pre<udice of the said
>o!anda %. ?!oro in the said a+ount of P1*&,000.00.
Contrar2 to !aw.;
B. Si8 "9# PCI Ban7 Chec7s
Cri+. Case No. &)0/$.$(1
;-hat so+eti+e in the second wee7 of Dece+4er 1((*, in the +unicipa!it2 of .e2caua2an, province of
Bu!acan, Phi!ippines, and within the <urisdiction of this =onora4!e Court, the said accused Jo2 6ee
Recuerdo, with intent of ,ain and 42 +eans of deceit, fa!se pretenses and fraudu!ent +anifestations,
and pretendin, to have sufficient funds with the PCI Ban7, .a7ati$De 6a Rosa Branch, did then and
there wi!!fu!!2, un!awfu!!2 and fe!onious!2 prepare, draw, +a7e and issue the fo!!owin, postdated
chec7s, to wit5
Chec7 No. Date +ount
0'*0'1()& .arch &), 1((1 P1*,000.00
0'*0'1()* pri! &), 1((1 1*,000.00
0'*0'1()1 .a2 &), 1((1 1*,000.00
0'*0'1()' June &), 1((1 1*,000.00
0'*0'1()9 Ju!2 &), 1((1 1*,000.00
0'*0'1()/ u,ust &), 1((1 1*,000.00
with the tota! a+ount of P/),000.00 drawn a,ainst the said 4an7, and de!iver the said chec7s to the
co+p!ainin, witness >o!anda %. ?!oro as pa2+ent for pieces of <ewe!r2 she o4tained fro+ the said
co+p!ainant, 7nowin, fu!!2 we!! at the ti+e the chec7s were issued that her representations were fa!se
for she had no sufficient funds in the said 4an7, so +uch that upon present+ent of the said chec7s with
the said 4an7 for encash+ent, the sa+e were dishonored and refused pa2+ent for havin, 4een drawn
a,ainst an ;ccount C!osed;, and inspite of repeated de+ands to deposit with the said 4an7 the a+ount
of P/),000.00, the said accused fai!ed and refused to do so, to the da+a,e and pre<udice of the said
>o!anda %. ?!oro in the said a+ount of P/),000.00.
Contrar2 to !aw.
C. Si8 "9# Prudentia! Ban7 Chec7s
Cri+ina! Case No. &/'1$.$(1
-hat on or a4out the /th da2 of ?e4ruar2, 1((1, in the +unicipa!it2 of .e2caua2an, province of
Bu!acan, Phi!ippines, and within the <urisdiction of this =onora4!e Court, the said accused Jo2 6ee
Recuerdo, with intent of ,ain and 42 +eans of deceit, fa!se pretenses and fraudu!ent +anifestations,
and pretendin, to have sufficient funds with the Prudentia! Ban7, 6e,aspi @i!!a,e Branch, did then and
there wi!!fu!!2, un!awfu!!2 and fe!onious!2 prepare, draw, +a7e and issue the fo!!owin, postdated
chec7s, to wit5
Chec7 No. Date +ount
0011/)* .arch 1*, 1((1 P100,000.00
0011/)1 pri! 1*, 1((1 100,000.00
0011/)' .a2 1*, 1((1 100,000.00
0011/)9 June 1*, 1((1 100,000.00
0011/)/ Ju!2 1*, 1((1 100,000.00
0011/)) u,ust 1*, 1((1 100,000.00
with the tota! a+ount of P900,000.00 drawn a,ainst the said 4an7, and de!iver the said chec7s to the
co+p!ainant witness >o!anda %. ?!oro as pa2+ent for pieces of <ewe!r2 she o4tained fro+ the said
co+p!ainant, 7nowin, fu!!2 we!! at the ti+e the chec7s were issued that her representations were fa!se
for she had no sufficient funds in the said 4an7, so +uch that upon present+ent of the said chec7s with
the said 4an7 for encash+ent, the sa+e were dishonored and refused pa2+ent for havin, 4een drawn
a,ainst an ;ccount C!osed;, and inspite of repeated de+ands to deposit with the said 4an7 the a+ount
of P900,000.00, the said accused fai!ed and refused to do so, to the da+a,e and pre<udice of the said
>o!anda %. ?!oro in the said a+ount of P900,000.00
Contrar2 to !aw.;
Evidence adduced 42 the Prosecution tend to esta4!ish that herein private respondent >o!anda %. ?!oro
is en,a,ed in the 4usiness of 4u2in, and se!!in, of <ewe!r2 since 1()'. She re,u!ar!2 conducts 4usiness
at her residence !ocated at No. '1 Interior, Po4!acion, .e2caua2an, Bu!acan. So+eti+es, thou,h, it was
?!oro who wou!d persona!!2 visit her custo+ers to show and offer the+ the pieces of <ewe!r2. =erein
accused$appe!!antApetitioner Jo2 6ee Recuerdo, on the other hand, a dentist 42 profession, who was
introduced to ?!oro 42 the !atterBs cousin i+ee oro in the first wee7 of Dece+4er 1((*, 4eca+e her
custo+er. So+eti+e in the second wee7 of Dece+4er 1((*, at around /5*0 in the evenin,, Recuerdo
went to the house of ?!oro in .e2caua2an, Bu!acan and purchased fro+ her two pieces of <ewe!r2, to
wit5 a &.1( carat dia+ond round stone in white ,o!d settin, worth P&&0,000.00 pesos, and one piece of
!oose 1.'' 7arat +arCue3 dia+ond with a va!ue of P1*0,000.00 pesos.
?or the &.1( carat dia+ond stone, accused issued and de!ivered to the co+p!ainant then and there ten
post$dated chec7s each in the a+ount of P&&,000.00 drawn a,ainst :nitrust Deve!op+ent Ban7, .a7ati
Co++ercia! Center Branch. On!2 si8 "9# postdated chec7s, to wit5 Chec7s Nos. 011*'9, 011*'/,
011*'), 011*'( and 011*90 are su4<ect of Cri+ina! Case No. &/'0$.$(1. ?or the 1.'' carat +arCue3
!oose dia+ond, accused issued and de!ivered to co+p!ainant then and there ten "10# postdated chec7s,
each in the a+ount of P1*,000.00 drawn a,ainst PCI Ban7, .a7ati, De!a Rosa Branch. Si8 of those
chec7s are su4<ect of Cri+ina! Case No. &)0/$.$(1, to wit5 Chec7s Nos. 0'*0'1()*, 0'*0'1()1,
0'*0'1()', 0'*0'1()9 and 0'*0'1()/, su4<ect +atter of Cri+. Case No. &/'1$.$(1.
In 2et another transaction that transpired in the ear!2 evenin, of ?e4ruar2 /, 1((1, Recuerdo once a,ain
proceeded at ?!oroBs house in .e2caua2an, Bu!acan and 4ou,ht another set of <ewe!r2, this ti+e a pair
of dia+ond earrin,s worth P/9),000.00 pesos. She was ,iven seven "/# postdated chec7s one for
P19),000.00 as downpa2+ent and another si8 "9# postdated chec7s drawn a,ainst Prudentia! Ban7,
6e,aspi @i!!a,e, .a7ati Branch, each for P100,000.00 representin, the 4a!ance in the a,,re,ate
a+ount of P900,000.00 pesos "Chec7s Nos. 100/)*, 011)1, 011)', 011/)9, 011/)/ and 011/)),
Record, Cri+ina! Case No. &/'0$.$(1, pp. 1*)$1'0# su4<ect +atter of Cri+. Case No. &/'1$.$(1.
?!oro deposited the afore+entioned chec7s at 6i4ert2 Savin,s D 6oan ssociation, .e2cEaFua2an,
Bu!acan. :pon present+ent for encash+ent 42 said depositar2 4an7 with the different drawee 4an7s on
their respective +aturit2 dates, the si8 "9# Prudentia! Ban7 chec7s were a!! dishonored for havin, 4een
drawn a,ainst c!osed accounts. Gith her pieces of <ewe!r2 sti!! unpaid, ?!oro, throu,h counse!, +ade
for+a! de+ands reCuirin, ReCuerdo to pa2 the a+ounts represented 42 the dishonored chec7s "Record,
supra, pp. 1&*, 1*), and 1'1#. ?!oroBs efforts to o4tain pa2+ent, thou,h, on!2 proved futi!e as ReCuerdo
continuous!2 refused to pa2 the va!ue of the purchased pieces of <ewe!r2.
:pon her arrai,n+ent on .arch 1, 1((' in Cri+ina! Case No. &)0/$.$(1, and on pri! 1, 1((' in
Cri+ina! Case Nos. &/'0$.$(1 and &/'1$.$(1, Recuerdo, with the assistance of counse!, p!eaded not
,ui!t2. "Record, Cri+ina! Case No. &)0/$.$(1, p. 10H Cri+ina! Case No. &/'0$.$(1, p. ')#.
Considerin, the identit2 of the parties concerned, and the nature of the transactions fro+ which the
char,es of Estafa trace its roots, the three cri+ina! cases were conso!idated. Joint tria! then ensured.
Recuerdo, on separate dates, posted three Persona! Bai! Bonds to o4tain provisiona! !i4ert2 "Record,
Cri+ina! Case No. &/'0$.$(1, p. &1H &)0/$.$(1, p. &/H &/'1$.$(1, p. 1/#.
B2 wa2 of defense, Recuerdo posited the theor2 that the tria! court of .a!o!os, Bu!acan is devoid of
<urisdiction to ta7e co,ni3ance of the cri+ina! cases a,ainst her, insistin, that a!! the essentia! e!e+ents
of the cri+e of Estafa invo!vin, the 4ad chec7s occurred at the Cit2 of .a7ati, in that, a!! her 4usiness
transactions with ?!oro, to witH the purchase of the pieces of <ewe!r2 and the su4seCuent issuance of and
de!iver2 of the su4<ect 4an7 chec7s in pa2+ent thereof which eventua!!2 4ounced, a!! too7 p!ace and
were e8ecuted at her Denta! C!inic !ocated at the .edica! -owers at Suite *09, =errera corner Or+a3a
Streets 6e,aspi @i!!a,e .a7ati Cit2. ?urther+ore, Recuerdo ar,ued that her act of issuin, the
dishonored chec7s does not constitute the offense of Estafa considerin, that the su4<ect chec7s were not
issued and de!ivered to ?!oro si+u!taneous to the purchase of the pieces of <ewe!r2, 4ut on!2 severa!
da2s thereafter, when she had a!read2 thorou,h!2 e8a+ined the <ewe!r2 and is fu!!2 satisfied of its fine
Cua!it2 "-SN, Jo2 6ee Recuerdo, Januar2 19, 1((9, pp. *$1)#.
&

On Ju!2 &), 1((/, the tria! court rendered a Joint Decision convictin, petitioner Jo2 6ee Recuerdo of
two counts of estafa under rtic!e *1', para,raph &"d# of the Revised Pena! Code. -he fa!!o of the
decision reads5
G=ERE?ORE, this Court finds the accused JO> 6EE REC:ERDO %:I6-> 4e2ond reasona4!e
dou4t of two "&# counts of estafa, defined and pena!i3ed under rtic!e *1', par. &E4F "sic# of the Revised
Pena! Code and here42 sentences her as fo!!ows5
1. In Cri+ina! Case Nos. &/'0$.$(1 and &)0/$.$(1, to suffer an indeter+inate pena!t2 of
i+prison+ent ran,in, fro+ si8 "9# 2ears and one "1# da2 of prison correcciona! as +ini+u+ to
twe!ve "1&# 2ears and one "1# da2 rec!usion te+pora! as +a8i+u+ and to pa2 >o!anda ?!oro 42
wa2 of civi! inde+nit2 the a+ount of P&10,000.00 pesos p!us interest fro+ the fi!in, of the
infor+ation unti! fu!!2 paidH and
&. In Cri+ina! Case No. &/'1$.$(1, to suffer an indeter+inate pena!t2 of i+prison+ent ran,in,
fro+ si8 "9# +ini+u+ to twe!ve "1&# 2ears and one "1# da2 of rec!usion te+pora! as +a8i+u+
and to pa2 >o!anda ?!oro 42 wa2 of civi! inde+nit2 the a+ount of P900,000.00 pesos p!us
interest fro+ the fi!in, of the infor+ation unti! fu!!2 paid.
In 4oth cases, accused sha!! pa2 the costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED.
*

Petitioner appea!ed the decision to the C on the fo!!owin, assi,n+ent of errors5
I.
-he Re,iona! -ria! Court erred in findin, that the .unicipa! -ria! Court, .e2caua2an, Bu!acan,
Branch I did not pass upon the +erits of the cri+ina! cases fi!ed a,ainst the petitioner 42
confinin, and !i+itin, itse!f +ere!2 to the dispositive portion of the Joint Decision dated &)
Januar2 1(() rendered 42 the !atter court, instead of readin, the Joint Decision as a who!e to ,et
its true +eanin, and intent.
II.
-he Re,iona! -ria! Court erred in affir+in, the <ud,+ent of conviction rendered 42 the
.unicipa! -ria! Court, .e2caua2an, Bu!acan, Branch II which is in dero,ation of the
petitionerBs ri,ht a,ainst dou4!e <eopard2 considerin, that the !atter was previous!2 acCuitted of
the sa+e cri+ina! cases 42 the .unicipa! -ria! Court of .e2caua2an, Bu!acan, Branch I.
III.
-he Re,iona! -ria! Court erred in findin, that a!! proceedin,s in the court a Cuo have 4een +ade
in the presence and with the authorit2 of the pu4!ic prosecutor, in the face of the undisputed fact
that the appea! initiated 42 the private respondent is fata!!2 defective 4ecause it was fi!ed
without the concurrence, per+ission and authorit2 of the pu4!ic prosecutor, in this case, the
provincia! prosecutor of Bu!acan.
1

Petitioner averred that the tria! court had no <urisdiction over the offenses char,ed 4ecause the cri+es
were co++itted in .a7ati Cit2 and not in .a!o!os, Bu!acan where the Infor+ations were fi!ed. -he
prosecution fai!ed to prove the essentia! e!e+ent of deceit 4ecause she drew and de!ivered the postdated
chec7s to the private co+p!ainant after the <ewe!ries had 4een de!ivered. .oreover, she was denied the
ri,ht to due process.
On u,ust &*, &001, the C rendered <ud,+ent affir+in, with +odification the decision of the R-C as
to the pena!t2 +eted on the appe!!ant. Petitioner fi!ed a +otion for reconsideration insistin, that 4ased
on the evidence on record, out of the 1/ su4<ect chec7s, nine were honored 42 the drawee 4an7s.
.oreover, she +ade partia! pa2+ents of the a+ounts of the su4<ect chec7s whi!e the case was pendin,
in the C. Contrar2 to the findin, of the tria! court and the appe!!ate courts that she acted with deceit
when she drew and de!ivered the chec7s in pa2+ent of the pieces of <ewe!r2 she purchased fro+ the
private co+p!ainant, she in fact acted in ,ood faithH hence, shou!d 4e acCuitted 4ased on the decision of
this Court in Peop!e v. O<eda.
'
-he C denied the +otion on .a2 &0, &00'.
Petitioner fi!ed the instant petition contendin, that5
-=E CO:R- O? PPE6S =S DECIDED -=E CSE CON@IC-IN% -=E PE-I-IONER IN
G> PROBB6> NO- IN CCORD GI-= I
. -=E BENE?ICEN- R:6IN% O? -=E S:PRE.E CO:R- EN:NCI-ED IN
PEOP6E O? -=E P=I6IPPINES @. COR BE66 OJED "%.R. NOS. 101&*)$'),
J:NE *, &001# G=ERE I- =E6D -=- DEB-ORBS O??ER -O RRN%E
P>.EN- SC=E.E GI-= =IS CREDI-OR ND P>.EN- O? -=E OB6I%-ION
INDIC-E %OOD ?I-= -=- S:CCESS?:66> REB:-S -=E PRES:.P-ION O?
DECEI-.
B. GI-= -=E PP6ICB6E DECISIONS O? -=E S:PRE.E CO:R- EN:NCI-ED
IN BORRO.EO @. CO:R- O? PPE6S, PEOP6E @. C6ORES, E- 6., PEOP6E @.
B:-IS- ND PEOP6E @. BENI-O %O BION%, JR. DIREC-IN% -=- IN
CRI.IN6 CSES, 66 CIRC:.S-NCES %INS- %:I6- ND IN ?@OR O?
INNOCENCE .:S- BE -JEN IN-O CCO:N-.
C. -=E CONS-I-:-ION6 PRES:.P-ION O? INNOCENCE IN CONJ:NC-ION
GI-= -=E ES-B6IS=ED J:RISPR:DENCE G=IC= =O6DS -=- G=EN ?CED
GI-= -GO PROBBI6I-IES, ONE CONSIS-EN- GI-= %:I6- ND -=E O-=ER
GI-= INNOCENCE, -=E SC6ES O? J:S-ICE S=O:6D -I6- IN ?@OR O?
INNOCENCE.
D. -=E PP6ICB6E DECISION O? -=E S:PRE.E CO:R- G=IC= DIREC-S
-=- IN ES-? CSES, I- IS O? PRI.ORDI6 SI%NI?ICNCE ?OR -=E
PROSEC:-ION -O PRO@E -=E EKC- D-E O? -=E -RNSC-ION ND -=E
EKC- D-E O? -=E ISS:NCE O? -=E C=ECJS.
9

Petitioner avers that she acted in ,ood faith and e8erted her ut+ost efforts to confer with the private
co+p!ainant to sett!e her o4!i,ations. She points out that she +ade +onth!2 cash pa2+ents to !essen her
civi! !ia4i!it2 and !ater on, for convenience, deposited the +onth!2 pa2+ents at the private
co+p!ainantBs 4an7 account with the Ban7 of the Phi!ippine Is!ands. She continued to +a7e pa2+ents
even durin, the pendenc2 of the case in the C, and continues to +a7e deposits to private
co+p!ainantBs 4an7 account.
Petitioner asserts that her efforts to sett!e her civi! o4!i,ations to the private co+p!ainant indicate that
she has no intention of dupin, the !atter, as we!! as the a4sence of deceit on her part. -hat she fai!ed to
co+p!2 with her o4!i,ations 42 fai!in, to +a7e ,ood the chec7s as the2 fe!! due does not su,,est
deceit, 4ut at 4est on!2 financia! hardship in fu!fi!!in, her civi! o4!i,ations. -hus, there is no factua! and
!e,a! 4asis to convict her of estafa. Petitioner insists that cri+ina! intent in e+4e33!e+ent is not 4ased
on technica! +ista7es as to the !e,a! effect of a transaction honest!2 entered into, and there can 4e no
e+4e33!e+ent if the +ind of the person doin, the act is innocent or if there is no wron,fu! purpose.
Petitioner further avers that she shou!d 4e 4enefited 42 the CourtBs ru!in, in Peop!e v. O<eda,
/
considerin, that the facts therein are para!!e! if not a!+ost identica! to this case, the on!2 difference
4ein, that, in the O<eda case, the accused$appe!!ant was a4!e to fu!!2 sett!e her civi! o4!i,ations.
Petitioner points out that she is sti!! pa2in, her o4!i,ations to the private co+p!ainant and further ar,ues
that5
EiFn Cri+ina! Case No. &/'0$.$(1, the petitioner issued ten "10# postdated :nitrust Deve!op+ent Ban7
chec7s to the private co+p!ainant for the purchase of a &.1( carat dia+ond stone in white ,o!d settin,.
Out of the ten "10# chec7s, four chec7s were du!2 funded when presented for acceptance and pa2+ent.
In Cri+ina! Case No. &)0/$.$(1, the petitioner issued ten "10# post$dated PCI Ban7 chec7s to the
private co+p!aint for the purchase of a 1.'' carat +arCue3 !oose dia+ond. -he first four "1# chec7s
were du!2 funded when presented for acceptance and pa2+ent. In Cri+ina! Case No. &/'1$.$(1, the
petitioner issued seven "/# post$dated Prudentia! Ban7 chec7s to the private co+p!ainant for the
purchase of a pair of dia+ond earrin,s. -he a+ount covered 42 the first chec7 was paid and sett!ed.
-he rest 4ounced.
-he petitioner respectfu!!2 su4+its that the act of the petitioner $$$ O? D:6> ?:NDIN% SO.E O?
-=E POS-$D-ED C=ECJS G=IC= S=E ISS:ED, SPECI?IC66> -=OSE G=IC= BEC.E
D:E ?IRS- OR ER6IER I is and shou!d 4e considered in !aw as, a CIRC:.S-NCE
INDIC-IN% %OOD ?I-= ND BSENCE O? DECEI-.
)

?or its part, the Office of the So!icitor %enera! asserts5
In the case of O<eda, the prosecution fai!ed to prove deceit. O<eda never assured Chua the chec7s were
funded. Chua 7new that the chec7s were issued to ,uarantee future pa2+ents. ?urther+ore, O<eda did
not on!2 +a7e arran,e+ents for pa2+ent 4ut she fu!!2 paid the entire a+ount of the dishonored chec7s.
In the instant case, the e!e+ents of deceit and da+a,e were esta4!ished 42 convincin, evidence.
Petitioner Recuerdo issued the su4<ect 4an7 chec7s as pa2+ent for the pieces of <ewe!r2 si+u!taneous
to the transactions, that is, on the ver2 sa+e occasion when the pieces of <ewe!r2 were 4ou,ht. -he
issuance of the chec7 42 Recuerdo was the principa! induce+ent to private co+p!ainant to part with the
su4<ect <ewe!ries "C Decision, pp. 1&$1*#. In addition, petitioner on!2 pro+ised to rep!ace the
dishonored chec7s 4ut she did not sett!e her o4!i,ations with private co+p!ainant. ssu+in, that there
was an offer to sett!e her o4!i,ations, this wi!! not overturn the findin,s of the tria! court and the Court
of ppea!s as to the presence of deceit.
-he ,ui!t of petitioner was proven 4e2ond reasona4!e dou4t.
-he cri+e of Estafa under rtic!e *1', para,raph &"d# of the Revised Pena! Code has the fo!!owin,
4asic e!e+ents5
Postdatin, or issuance of a chec7 in pa2+ent of an o4!i,ation contracted si+u!taneous!2 at the ti+e the
chec7 was issuedH
-he postdatin, or issuance was done when the offender had no funds in the 4an7, or that his funds
deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the a+ount of the chec7H and
Da+a,e to the pa2ee thereof "Justice 6uis B. Re2es, -he Revised Pena! Code, -hirteenth Edition 1((*,
Boo7 -wo, p. 9(*H Peop!e v. Pan,ani4an, **' SCR *'1#.
-he e8istence of the fore,oin, e!e+ents of the cri+e was concrete!2 esta4!ished 42 the prosecution
throu,h convincin, evidence, warrantin, petitionerBs conviction of the offense of Estafa.
-he tria! court found private co+p!ainant ?!oroBs testi+on2 that petitioner issued the su4<ect chec7s as
pa2+ent for the purchase of pieces of <ewe!r2 si+u!taneous to their transactions to 4e cate,orica! and
credi4!e. -here was sufficient evidence esta4!ished 42 the prosecution that the chec7s were issued 42
the accused to the co+p!ainant in e8chan,e of the pieces of <ewe!r2 ,iven to her on two separate
occasions.
-he issue of deceit raised 42 petitioner is a factua! issue and +ust 4e proved 42 evidence. -he findin,
of the tria! court and the Court of ppea!s that the issuance of petitioner was tainted with fraud or
deceit is a factua! findin, that 4inds this =onora4!e Court "Jose R. %uevarra vs. -he =on. Court of
ppea!s, et a!., %.R. No. 100)(1, pro+. Januar2 &9, 1((*#.
(

In rep!2, petitioner avers that she is a dentistAorthodontist with a fair!2 esta4!ished practice at the
.edica! -owers, I4arra St., 6e,aspi @i!!a,e, .a7ati Cit2. She did not +ove out of her office 4ecause
she had no intention to rene,e on her o4!i,ations to the private co+p!ainant.
-he petition is denied for !ac7 of +erit.
Estafa throu,h fa!se pretense or fraudu!ent act under Para,raph &"d# of rtic!e *1' of the Revised Pena!
Code, as a+ended 42 Repu4!ic ct No. 1))', is co++itted as fo!!ows5
B2 postdatin, a chec7, or issuin, a chec7 in pa2+ent of an o4!i,ation when the offender had no funds
in the 4an7, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the a+ount of the chec7. -he
fai!ure of the drawer of the chec7 to deposit the a+ount necessar2 to cover his chec7 within three "*#
da2s fro+ receipt of notice fro+ the 4an7 andAor the pa2ee or ho!der that said chec7 has 4een
dishonored for !ac7 or insufficienc2 of funds sha!! 4e pri+a facie evidence of deceit constitutin, fa!se
pretense or fraudu!ent act.
-he essentia! e!e+ents of the fe!on2 are5 "1# a chec7 is postdated or issued in pa2+ent of an o4!i,ation
contracted at the ti+e it is issuedH "&# !ac7 or insufficienc2 of funds to cover the chec7H and "*# da+a,e
to the pa2ee thereof.
10
It is cri+ina! fraud or deceit in the issuance of a chec7 which is +ade punisha4!e
under the Revised Pena! Code, and not the non$pa2+ent of a de4t.
11
Deceit is the fa!se representation
of a +atter of fact whether 42 words or conduct 42 fa!se or +is!eadin, a!!e,ations or 42 concea!+ent of
that which shou!d have 4een disc!osed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he sha!!
act upon it to his !e,a! in<ur2.
1&
Concea!+ent which the !aw denotes as fraudu!ent i+p!ies a purpose or
desi,n to hide facts which the other part2 ou,ht to have.
1*
-he postdatin, or issuin, of a chec7 in
pa2+ent of an o4!i,ation when the offender had no funds in the 4an7 or his funds deposited therein are
not sufficient to cover the a+ount of the chec7 is a fa!se pretense or a fraudu!ent act.
11

-here is no fa!se pretense or fraudu!ent act if a postdated chec7 is issued in pa2+ent of a pre$e8istin,
o4!i,ation.
1'
s the Court e+phasi3ed in -i+4a! v. Court of ppea!s5
19

8 8 8 In order to constitute Estafa under the statutor2 provisions, the act of postdatin, or of issuin, a
chec7 in pa2+ent of an o4!i,ation +ust 4e the efficient cause of the defraudationH accordin,!2, it shou!d
4e either prior to or si+u!taneous with the act of fraud. In fine, the offender +ust 4e a4!e to o4tain
+one2 or propert2 fro+ the offended part2 42 reason of the issuance, whether postdated or not, of the
chec7. It +ust 4e shown that the person to who+ the chec7 is de!ivered wou!d not have parted with his
+one2 or propert2 were it not for the issuance of the chec7 42 the other part2.
Estafa is a fe!on2 co++itted 42 do!o "with +a!ice#. ?or one to 4e cri+ina!!2 !ia4!e for estafa under
para,raph "&#"d# of rtic!e *1' of the Revised Pena! Code, +a!ice and specific intent to defraud are
reCuired.
%enera! cri+ina! intent is an e!e+ent of a!! cri+es 4ut +a!ice is proper!2 app!ied on!2 to de!i4erate acts
done on purpose and with desi,n. Evi! intent +ust unite with an un!awfu! act for there to 4e a fe!on2.
de!i4erate and un!awfu! act ,ives rise to a presu+ption of +a!ice 42 intent. On the other hand, specific
intent is a definite and actua! purpose to acco+p!ish so+e particu!ar thin,.
-he ,enera! cri+ina! intent is presu+ed fro+ the cri+ina! act and in the a4sence of an2 ,enera! intent
is re!ied upon as a defense, such a4sence +ust 4e proved 42 the accused. %enera!!2, a specific intent is
not presu+ed. Its e8istence, as a +atter of fact, +ust 4e proved 42 the State <ust as an2 other essentia!
e!e+ent. -his +a2 4e shown, however, 42 the nature of the act, the circu+stances under which it was
co++itted, the +eans e+p!o2ed and the +otive of the accused.
1/

-he !aw provides that, in estafa, pri+a facie evidence of deceit is esta4!ished upon proof that the
drawer of the chec7 fai!ed to deposit the a+ount necessar2 to cover his chec7 within three "*# da2s
fro+ receipt of the notice of dishonor for !ac7 or insufficienc2 of funds. pri+a facie evidence need
not 4e re4utted 42 a preponderance of evidence, nor 42 evidence of ,reater wei,ht. -he evidence of the
accused which eCua!i3es the wei,ht of the Peop!eBs evidence or puts the case in eCuipoise is sufficient.
s a resu!t, the Peop!e wi!! have to ,o forward with the proof. Shou!d it happen that, at the tria! the
wei,ht of evidence is eCua!!2 4a!anced or at eCui!i4riu+ and the presu+ption operates a,ainst the
Peop!e who has the 4urden of proof, it cannot prevai!.
1)

-here can 4e no estafa if the accused acted in ,ood faith 4ecause ,ood faith ne,ates +a!ice and
deceit.
1(
%ood faith is an intan,i4!e and a4stract Cua!it2 with no technica! +eanin, or statutor2
definition, and it enco+passes, a+on, other thin,s, an honest 4e!ief, the a4sence of +a!ice and the
a4sence of desi,n to defraud or to see7 an unconsciona4!e advanta,e. n individua!Bs persona! ,ood
faith is a concept of his own +ind, therefore, +a2 not conc!usive!2 4e deter+ined 42 his protestations
a!one. It i+p!ies honest2 of intention and freedo+ fro+ 7now!ed,e of circu+stances which ou,ht to
put the ho!der upon inCuir2. -he essence of ,ood faith !ies in an honest 4e!ief in the va!idit2 of oneBs
ri,ht, i,norance of a superior c!ai+, and a4sence of intention to overreach another.
&0
In Peop!e v.
%u!ion,
&1
the Court he!d that5
%ood faith is a defense to a char,e of Estafa 42 postdatin, a chec7. -his +a2 4e +anifested 42 the
accusedBs offerin, to +a7e arran,e+ents with his creditor as to the +anner of pa2+ent or, as in the
present case, averrin, that his p!acin, his si,nature on the Cuestioned chec7s was pure!2 a resu!t of his
,u!!i4i!it2 and inadvertence, with the unfortunate resu!t that he hi+se!f 4eca+e a victi+ of the tric7er2
and +anipu!ations of accused$at$!ar,e.
&&

In the present case, the prosecution adduced proof 4e2ond reasona4!e dou4t of the ,ui!t of the
petitioner of the cri+e char,ed. -he tria! court ,ave credence and pro4ative wei,ht to the evidence of
the Peop!e and dis4e!ieved that proferred 42 the petitioner.
PetitionerBs insistence of her ,ood faith and her re!iance on the ru!in, of this Court in the O<eda case
were raised as a +ere afterthou,ht in a !ast ditch effort to secure her acCuitta!, as these ar,u+ents were
invo7ed on!2 in her +otion for reconsideration of the C decision. In Pascua! v. Ra+os,
&*
this Court
he!d that if an issue is raised on!2 in the +otion for reconsideration of the appe!!ate courtBs decision, it
is as if it was never raised in that court at a!!.
PetitionerBs defense of ,ood faith is even 4e!ied 42 the evidence of the prosecution and her own
evidence. Ghen the postdated chec7s issued 42 petitioner were dishonored 42 the drawee 4an7s and the
private co+p!ainant +ade de+ands for her to pa2 the a+ounts of the chec7s, she intransi,ent!2 refused
to pa2H she insisted that she issued and de!ivered the postdated chec7s to the private co+p!ainant after
the su4<ect pieces of <ewe!r2 had 4een de!ivered to her. Petitioner never offered to pa2 the a+ounts of
the chec7s after she was infor+ed 42 the private co+p!ainant that the2 had 4een dishonored 42 the
drawee 4an7s, the private co+p!ainant thus char,ed her with estafa 4efore the R-C. It was on!2 durin,
the period of Januar2 1, &00' to June &/, &00', after the C pro+u!,ated its decision affir+in, the
decision of the tria! court, that petitioner +ade severa! pa2+ents to the private co+p!ainant. Ghi!e
petitioner appended the deposit s!ips
&1
to her +otion for reconsideration in the C and her petition in
this Court, there is no showin, as to which chec7s the2 were +ade in pa2+ent for. In fine, it was the
spectre of a !on, prison ter+ which <o!ted petitioner into +a7in, re+ittances to the private
co+p!ainant, after the C affir+ed the decision of the tria! court and increased the pena!t2 +eted on
her, and not 4ecause she had acted in ,ood faith in her transactions with the private co+p!ainant. -o
reiterate, petitioner re<ected the de+ands of the private co+p!ainant to pa2 the a+ounts of the
dishonored chec7s.
Ghi!e it is true that nine of the 1/ postdated chec7s petitioner issued and de!ivered to the private
co+p!ainant were honored 42 the drawee 4an7s, such a circu+stance is not a <ustification for her
acCuitta! of the char,es re!ative to the dishonored chec7s. -he rei+4urse+ent or restitution to the
offended part2 of the su+s swind!ed 42 the petitioner does not e8tin,uish the cri+ina! !ia4i!it2 of the
!atter. It on!2 e8tin,uishes pro tanto the civi! !ia4i!it2.
&'
.oreover, estafa is a pu4!ic offense which +ust
4e prosecuted and punished 42 the State on its own +otion even thou,h co+p!ete reparation had 4een
+ade for the !oss or da+a,e suffered 42 the offended part2.
&9
-he consent of the private co+p!ainant to
petitionerBs pa2+ent of her civi! !ia4i!it2 pendente !ite does not entit!e the !atter to an acCuitta!.
Su4seCuent pa2+ents does not o4!iterate the cri+ina! !ia4i!it2 a!read2 incurred.
&/
Cri+ina! !ia4i!it2 for
estafa is not affected 42 a co+pro+ise 4etween petitioner and the private co+p!ainant on the for+erBs
civi! !ia4i!it2.
&)

Petitioner cannot find so!ace in the CourtBs ru!in, in the O<eda case. -he C correct!2 refuted the
su4+ission of the petitioner in its decision, thus5
-his Court is in fu!! a,ree+ent with the position advanced 42 the Office of the So!icitor %enera! that on
account of the ,!arin, dissi+i!arities 4etween the factua! 4ac7drop of the case of O<eda, on one hand,
and the +ateria! facts o4tainin, in the case at 4ench, on the other, the doctrine in the for+er case +a2
not 4e app!ied to 4enefit accused$appe!!ant. Indeed, even accused$appe!!ant herse!f was Cuic7 to ad+it
that the facts of her case are not entire!2 on a!! fours with those that o4tained in the case of O<eda. t
the outset, e+phasis +ust 4e +ade of the fact that the acCuitta! of the accused in the O<eda case was
4rou,ht a4out 42 a co+4ination of reasons not o4tainin, in the present case. ?irst, the Supre+e Court
ru!ed out the e8istence of deceit and intent to defraud in the case of O<eda in view of the fact that the
accused therein perfor+ed e8traordinar2 efforts to ,radua!!2 pa2 and sett!e her +onetar2 o4!i,ations
with the private co+p!ainant, and this convinced the =i,h Court that the acts of the accused were not
tainted with +a!ice, 4ad faith and cri+ina! intent. @eri!2, the accused in the O<eda case not on!2 +ade
deter+ined and honest arran,e+ents to pa2 the private co+p!ainant, 4ut was !i7ewise a4!e to actua!!2
satisf2 with co+p!eteness the su+s she owed the !atter, and this was evidenced 42 an affidavit of
desistance where the private co+p!ainant cate,orica!!2 dec!ared that the accused a!read2 paid in fu!! her
+onetar2 o4!i,ations. -he facts in the instant case, however, are tota!!2 different. Contrar2 to the
contention of accused$appe!!ant, she never +ade a deter+ined and earnest effort to arran,e and sett!e
with ?!oro with the end in view of pa2in, her +onetar2 o4!i,ations. In truth, accused$appe!!ant si+p!2
pro+ised to pa2 ?!oro the va!ue of the dishonored chec7s that were issued in pa2+ent for the pieces of
<ewe!r2. =owever, that was a!! there was to it, and !a+enta4!2 said pro+ise turned out to 4e an e+pt2
one as accused$appe!!ant never +ade ,ood her co++it+ent to pa2 for the va!ue of the dishonored
chec7s. ccused$appe!!ant never arran,ed a pa2+ent sche+e with ?!oro, and as the facts of the case
wou!d disc!ose she never +ade an2 ,radua! pa2+ent to ?!oro as shown 42 the fact that the va!ue of the
dishonored chec7s re+ained unpaid, in direct contrast with the facts of the O<eda case where the
accused was a4!e to pa2 in fu!!. Suffice it to sa2 that accused$appe!!ant fai!ed to perfor+ an2 concrete
act to show that she had the intention of pa2in, ?!oro for the va!ue of the purchased pieces of <ewe!r2,
in order to so+ehow re4ut the fact du!2 esta4!ished 42 the prosecution that deceit attended her 4usiness
dea!in,s with ?!oro. It +ust 4e reiterated that Ge have found that accused$appe!!ant issued the su4<ect
4an7 chec7s as pa2+ent for the pieces of <ewe!r2 si+u!taneous with her transactions with ?!oro, and
that was, on the ver2 sa+e occasion when the pieces of <ewe!r2 were purchased, first, on the second
wee7 of Dece+4er 1((*, and su4seCuent!2, on ?e4ruar2 /, 1((1. It 4ein, c!ear that the su4<ect 4an7
chec7s were issued si+u!taneous with said transactions, it !i7ewise 4eca+e evident that deceit attended
accused$appe!!antsB dea!in,s with ?!oro for the sa+e on!2 ,oes to show that the 4u+ chec7s were
issued to ?!oro in order to induce her to part with the pieces of <ewe!r2 in favor of accused$appe!!ant.
In addition to the fore,oin,, the =i,h Court !i7ewise found in the O<eda case that the prosecution
+isera4!2 fai!ed to adduce evidence to esta4!ish that the indispensa4!e e!e+ent of notice of dishonor
was sent to and was received 42 the accused therein. In the case at 4ench, however, it is undisputed that
after the dishonor of the su4<ect 4an7 chec7s ?!oro, throu,h counse!, +ade repeated for+a! de+ands
reCuirin, accused$appe!!ant to pa2 for the va!ue of the 4u+ chec7s, perforce the notice of dishonor
which is reCuired to proper!2 prosecute and eventua!!2 convict an accused of the cri+e of Estafa under
rtic!e *1', para,raph &"d# of the Revised Pena! Code has 4een sufficient!2 +et.
&(

IN 6I%=- O? 66 -=E ?ORE%OIN%, the petition is DENIED. -he Decision and Reso!ution of the
Court of ppea!s are ??IR.ED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ROEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
ssociate Justice