Case: Mr. Yoso is the owner of hardware store. On January 21, 2015, Ms.

Teryo, a former
schoolmate and regular customer of MR. Yoso visited the hardware store and purchased
several items in the total amount of 4 million pesos. Mr. Yoso accepted Ms. Teryos payment
of 2 postdated checks which is worth 2 million in total view of the commitment of Ms.
Teryo that the checks will be honored upon presentment for payment. Mr. Yoso
immediately delivered the materials to the house of Ms. Teryo. The following day Ms. Teryo went
back to Mr. Yoso to tender 2 another postdated checks in amount of 1 million pesos each
to complete the payment, with the assurance that the checks will be honored upon presentment
for payment. When the checks were presented for payment, all were dishonored for
insufficiency of funds and corresponding notices of dishonor were sent and received by Ms.
Teryo. One month after receipt of the notices of dishonor, Ms. Teryo failed make goods of the
check.
Is Ms. Teryo liable for estafa under Art. 315 par. 2 (d) of the RPC?

Estafa is a criminal offense wherein a person defrauds another by the following means:
1)

By UNFAITHFULNESS or ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE;

2)

By DECEIT/ FRAUDULENT ACT;

3)

By FRAUDULENT MEANS.

The case presented before us is a question whether Ms. Teryo is liable for estafa under
Art. 315 par. 2 (d) of the RPC.
Article 315, paragraph 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885,
penalizes estafa when committed, among other things,
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
xxx xxx xxx
(d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when
the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not
sufficient to cover the amount of the check. . . .
What is significant to note is that the time or occasion for the commission of the false pretense
or fraudulent act). The false pretense or fraudulent act must be executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. Thus, under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, the following are the elements
of estafa:
(1) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at
the time the check was issued;
(2) lack or sufficiency of funds to cover the check; and
(3) damage to the payee thereof.
Now, let us dissect the facts given by at the case at bar.
>Ms. Teryo purchased several items at Mr. Yosos hardaware store worth four (4) million
>She issued two (2) postdated checks worth 1 million each to Mr.Yoso as payment
thereof to the said items.

>The purchased Items were delivered to her house

> A day after, she again issued two (2) postdated checks worth 1 million each to Mr.Yoso
as payment thereof to the said items with an assurance that these will be honored upon
presentment but it was dishonored.
> After a month of notices of the dishonor, she failed to make good of the checks.
>Thus, the filing of case.

It is clear that under the law, the false pretense or fraudulent act must be executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. To defraud is to deprive some right, interest, or
property by deceitful device. From the facts given therein, the issuance of the first two
postdated checks were issued in consideration of the purchased items by Ms. Teryo prior
to its delivery to her house. Here, she made assurance that the checks she issued will be
good upon its presentment which was contrary to what happened, employing the
deceitful act that the postdated checks have enough funds and were good upon
presentment. The last two checks were given after a day when the items she purchased
were delivered.
From, the foregoing the 1 st element of estafa was present when the first two (2)
postdated checks were issued prior to or simultaneous the obligation to be fulfilled by
the Mr. Teryo.
The second element is present the same Proof of which are the notices of dishonor
that were forwarded to Ms. Teryo for having insufficiency or no funds of the postdated
checks she issued that she failed to make good within 3 days after it was dishonored.
And as a consequence, Damage was incurred by Mr. Teryo. The items he delivered cost a
lot, plus his time and effort just to collect the said amount she was obligated to him. This
cause money constraint and lost for his business for the past months. (Third Element)
All the elements, to constitute estafa under Art. 315 par. 2 (d) were present in the case at
bar. Thus, she is liable for Estafa under Art. 315 par. 2 (d) of the RPC for the first two
checks she had issued to Mr. Teryo. As to the last two checks she will be held civilly
liable due to lack of 1st element. But still she will be prosecuted and guilty of estafa the
same.
She cannot interpose a defense of good faith. There is no showing in the facts that she
employed effort to settle her liabilities with the party involve and that she has NO
knowledge that the checks will bounced as evidence is her statement that the checks will
all be good upon presentment.
Prima facie evidence of deceit is clear too, when there was no effort coming from Ms.
Teryo to settle and make good of the checks after knowing within three days that the
checks were all dishonored.