9/16/2016

G.R.No.158312

SECONDDIVISION

JOHNDY,
Petitioner,

G.R.No.158312

Present:

QUISUMBING,ActingC.J.,
Chairperson,
versus
CARPIOMORALES,

TINGA,

VELASCO,JR.,and

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES BRION,JJ.

and The HONORABLE COURT
Promulgated:
OFAPPEALS,
Respondents.

November14,2008

xx

DECISION
QUISUMBING,ActingC.J.:
[1]
This appeal prays for the reversal of the Decision dated January 23, 2003 and the
[2]
Resolution dated May 14, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CR No. 23802. The
[3]
appellate court affirmed with modification the Decision dated November 17, 1999 of the
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch82ofQuezonCity,whichhadconvictedpetitionerJohnDy
oftwocountsofestafainCriminalCasesNos.Q9346711andQ9346713,andtwocountsof
[4]
violationofBatasPambansaBilang22 (B.P.Blg.22) in Criminal Cases Nos. Q9346712
andQ9346714.
Thefactsareundisputed:
Since 1990, John Dy has been the distributor of W.L. Food Products (W.L. Foods) in
NagaCity,Bicol,underthebusinessnameDynaMarketing.DywouldpayW.L.Foodsineither

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/158312.htm

1/16

9/16/2016

G.R.No.158312

cash or check upon pick up of stocks of snack foods at the latters branch or main office in
QuezonCity.Attimes,hewouldentrustthepaymenttooneofhisdrivers.
OnJune24,1992,DysdriverwenttothebranchofficeofW.L.Foodstopickupstocks
of snack foods. He introduced himself to the checker, Mary Jane D. Maraca, who upon
confirmingDyscreditwiththemainoffice,gavehimmerchandiseworthP106,579.60.Inreturn,
the driver handed her a blank Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) Check with Check
No.553602postdatedJuly22,1992.The check was signed by Dy though it did not indicate a
specificamount.
Yet again, on July 1, 1992, the same driver obtained snack foods from Maraca in the
amount of P226,794.36 in exchange for a blank FEBTC Check with Check No. 553615
postdatedJuly31,1992.
Inbothinstances,thedriverwasissuedanunsigneddeliveryreceipt.Theamountsforthe
purchaseswerefilledinlaterbyEvelynOng,accountantofW.L.Foods,basedonthevalueof
thegoodsdelivered.
When presented for payment, FEBTC dishonored the checks for insufficiency of funds.
Raul D. Gonzales, manager of FEBTCNaga Branch, notified Atty. Rita Linda Jimeno, counsel
ofW.L.Foods,ofthedishonor.Apparently, Dy only had an available balance of P2,000asof
July22,1992andJuly31,1992.
[5]
Later, Gonzales sent Atty. Jimeno another letter advising her that FEBTC Check No.
553602 for P106,579.60 was returned to the drawee bank for the reasons stop payment order
and drawn against uncollected deposit (DAUD), and not because it was drawn against
insufficient funds as stated in the first letter. Dys savings deposit account ledger reflected a
balanceofP160,659.39asofJuly22,1992.This,however,includedaregionalclearingcheckfor
P55,000 which he deposited on July 20, 1992, and which took five (5) banking days to clear.
Hence,theinwardcheckwasdrawnagainsttheyetuncollecteddeposit.
When William Lim, owner of W.L. Foods, phoned Dy about the matter, the latter
explained that he could not pay since he had no funds yet. This prompted the former to send
petitionerademandletter,whichthelatterignored.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/158312.htm

2/16

9/16/2016

G.R.No.158312

OnJuly16,1993,LimchargedDywithtwocountsofestafaunderArticle315,paragraph
[6]
2(d) oftheRevisedPenalCodeintwoInformations,whichexceptforthedatesandamounts
involved,similarlyreadasfollows:
Thatonoraboutthe24thdayofJune,1992,inQuezonCity,Philippines,thesaidaccused,did
then and there [willfully] and feloniously defraud W.L. PRODUCTS, a corporation duly organized and
existingunderthelawsoftheRepublicofthePhilippineswithbusinessaddressatNo.531Gen.LuisSt.,
Novaliches,thisCity,inthefollowingmanner,towit:thesaidaccused,bymeansoffalsemanifestations
andfraudulentrepresentationwhichhemadetocomplainanttotheeffectthatFarEastBankandTrustCo.
checkNo.553602datedJuly22,1992intheamountofP106,579.60,payabletoW.L.Productsisa
goodcheckandwillbehonoredbythebankonitsmaturitydate,andbymeansofotherdeceitofsimilar
import,inducedandsucceededininducingthesaidcomplainanttoreceiveandaccepttheaforesaidcheck
in payment of snack foods, the said accused knowing fully well that all his manifestations and
representationswerefalseanduntrueandweremadesolelyforthepurposeofobtaining,asinfacthedid
obtaintheaforesaidsnackfoodsvaluedatP106,579.60fromsaidcomplainantasuponpresentationof
saidchecktothebankforpayment,thesamewasdishonoredandpaymentthereofrefusedforthereason
stop payment and the said accused, once in possession of the aforesaid snack foods, with intent to
defraud,[willfully],unlawfullyandfeloniouslymisapplied,misappropriatedandconvertedthesameorthe
valuethereoftohisownpersonaluseandbenefit,tothedamageandprejudiceofsaidW.L.Products,
hereinrepresentedbyRODOLFOBORJAL,intheaforementionedamountofP106,579.60, Philippine
Currency.

[7]

Contrarytolaw.

On even date, Lim also charged Dy with two counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 in two
Informationswhichlikewisesaveforthedatesandamountsinvolvedsimilarlyreadasfollows:
Thatonoraboutthe24th day of June, 1992, the said accused, did then and there [willfully],
unlawfullyandfeloniouslymakeordrawandissuetoW.L.FOODPRODUCTStoapplyonaccountor
for value a Far East Bank and Trust Co. Check no. 553602 dated July 22, 1992 payable to W.L.
FOOD PRODUCTS in the amount of P106,579.60 Philippine Currency, said accused knowing fully
wellthatatthetimeofissuehe/she/theydidnothavesufficientfundsinorcreditwiththedraweebank
forpaymentofsuchcheckinfulluponitspresentment,whichcheckwhenpresented90daysfromthe
datethereofwassubsequentlydishonoredbythedraweebankforthereasonPaymentstoppedbutthe
samewouldhavebeendishonoredforinsufficientfundshadnottheaccusedwithoutanyvalidreason,
orderedthebanktostoppayment,thesaidaccuseddespitereceiptofnoticeofsuchdishonor,failedto
paysaidW.L.FoodProductstheamountofsaidcheckortomakearrangementforpaymentinfullof
thesamewithinfive(5)bankingdaysafterreceivingsaidnotice.
CONTRARYTOLAW.

[8]

On November 23, 1994, Dy was arrested in Naga City. On arraignment, he pleaded not
guiltytoallcharges.Thereafter,thecasesagainsthimweretriedjointly.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/158312.htm

3/16

9/16/2016

G.R.No.158312

OnNovember17,1999theRTCconvictedDyontwocountseachofestafaandviolation
ofB.P.Blg.22.Thetrialcourtdisposedofthecaseasfollows:
WHEREFORE,accusedJOHNJERRYDYALDEN(JOHNDY)isherebyfoundGUILTY
beyondreasonabledoubtofswindling(ESTAFA)aschargedintheInformationsinCriminalCaseNo.
9346711 and in Criminal Case No. Q9346713, respectively. Accordingly, after applying the
provisionsoftheIndeterminateSentenceLawandP.D.No.818,saidaccusedisherebysentencedto
suffertheindeterminatepenaltyoften(10)yearsandone(1)daytotwelve(12)yearsofprisionmayor,
as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, in Criminal Case No. Q93
46711 and of ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years of prisionmayor, as minimum, to
thirty(30)yearsofreclusionperpetua,asmaximum,inCriminalCaseNo.Q9346713.
Likewise,saidaccusedisherebyfoundGUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofViolationofB.P.
22aschargedintheInformationsinCriminalCaseNo.Q9346712andinCriminalCaseNo.Q93
46714andisaccordinglysentencedtoimprisonmentofone(1)yearforeachofthesaidoffenseandto
payafineinthetotalamountofP333,373.96,withsubsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvency.
FINALLY,judgmentisherebyrenderedinfavorofprivatecomplainant,W.L.FoodProducts,
hereinrepresentedbyRodolfoBorjal,andagainsthereinaccusedJOHNJERRYDYALDEN(JOHN
DY),orderingthelattertopaytotheformerthetotalsumofP333,373.96plusinterestthereonatthe
rateof12%perannumfromSeptember28,1992untilfullypaidand,(2)thecostsofthissuit.

[9]

SOORDERED.

DybroughtthecasetotheCourtofAppeals.IntheassailedDecisionofJanuary23,2003,
theappellatecourtaffirmedtheRTC.It,however,modifiedthesentenceanddeletedthepayment
ofinterestsinthiswise:
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,thedecisionappealedfromisherebyAFFIRMEDwith
MODIFICATION. In Criminal Case No. Q9346711 (for estafa), the accusedappellant JOHN
JERRYDYALDEN(JOHNDY)isherebysentencedtosufferanindeterminatepenaltyofimprisonment
rangingfromsix(6)yearsandone(1)dayofprisionmayorasminimumtotwenty(20)yearsofreclusion
temporal as maximum plus eight (8) years in excess of [P]22,000.00. In Criminal Case No. Q93
46712(forviolationofBP22),accusedappellantissentencedtosufferanimprisonmentofone(1)year
andtoindemnifyW.L.FoodProducts,representedbyRodolfoBorjal,theamountofONEHUNDRED
SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE PESOS and 60/100 ([P]106,579.60). In
Criminal Case No. Q9346713 (for estafa), accusedappellant is hereby sentenced to suffer an
indeterminatepenaltyofimprisonmentrangingfromeight(8)yearsandone(1)dayofprisionmayoras
minimumtothirty(30)yearsasmaximum.Finally,inCriminalCaseNo.Q9346714(forviolationof
BP22),accusedappellantissentencedtosufferanimprisonmentofone(1)yearandtoindemnifyW.L.
Food Products, represented by Rodolfo Borjal, the amount of TWO HUNDRED TWENTY SIX
THOUSANDSEVENHUNDREDNINETYFOURPESOSAND36/100([P]226,794.36).

[10]

SOORDERED.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/158312.htm

4/16

9/16/2016

G.R.No.158312

Dymovedforreconsideration,buthismotionwasdeniedintheResolutiondatedMay14,
2003.
Hence,thispetitionwhichraisesthefollowingissues:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS PROVEN THE GUILT OF ACCUSED BEYOND
REASONABLEDOUBTOFESTAFAONTWO(2)COUNTS?
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS PROVEN THE GUILT OF ACCUSED BEYOND
REASONABLEDOUBTOFVIOLATIONOFBP22ONTWO(2)COUNTS?
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
AWARDING DAMAGES TO PRIVATE COMPLAINANT, W.L. FOOD PRODUCTS, THE

[11]

TOTALSUMOF[P]333,373.96?

Essentially,theissueiswhetherJohnDyisliableforestafaandforviolationofB.P.Blg.
22.
First,ispetitionerguiltyofestafa?
Mainly, petitioner contends that the checks were ineffectively issued. He stresses that not
only were the checks blank, but also that W.L. Foods accountant had no authority to fill the
amounts. Dy also claims failure of consideration to negate any obligation to W.L. Foods.
Ultimately,petitionerdenieshavingdeceivedLiminasmuchasonlythetwochecksbouncedsince
hebegandealingwithhim.Hemaintainsthatitwashislongestablishedbusinessrelationshipwith
Lim that enabled him to obtain the goods, and not the checks issued in payment for them.
Petitioner renounces personal liability on the checks since he was absent when the goods were
delivered.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), for the State, avers that the delivery of the
checksbyDysdrivertoMaraca,constitutedvalidissuance.TheOSGsustainsOngsprimafacie
authority to fill the checks based on the value of goods taken. It observes that nothing in the
recordsshowedthatW.L.FoodsaccountantfilledupthechecksinviolationofDysinstructions
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/158312.htm

5/16

9/16/2016

G.R.No.158312

ortheirpreviousagreement.Finally,theOSGchallengesthepresentpetitionasaninappropriate
remedytoreviewthefactualfindingsofthetrialcourt.
Wefindthatthepetitionispartlymeritorious.
Before an accused can be held liable for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885,

[12]
the following elements must

concur:(1)postdatingorissuanceofacheckinpaymentofanobligationcontractedatthetime
thecheckwasissued(2)insufficiencyoffundstocoverthecheckand(3)damagetothepayee
thereof.

[13]
Theseelementsarepresentintheinstantcase.

[14]
Section191oftheNegotiableInstrumentsLaw
definesissueasthefirstdeliveryofan
instrument,completeinform,toapersonwhotakesitasaholder.Significantly, delivery is the
final act essential to the negotiability of an instrument.Delivery denotes physical transfer of the
instrument by the maker or drawer coupled with an intention to convey title to the payee and
recognize him as a holder.

[15]
It means more than handing over to another it imports such

transferoftheinstrumenttoanotherastoenablethelattertoholditforhimself.

[16]

Inthiscase,evenifthechecksweregiventoW.L.Foodsinblank,thisalonedidnotmake
itsissuanceinvalid.WhenthechecksweredeliveredtoLim,throughhisemployee,hebecamea
holder with prima facie authority to fill the blanks. This was, in fact, accomplished by Lims
accountant.
ThepertinentprovisionsofSection14oftheNegotiableInstrumentsLawareinstructive:
SEC. 14. Blanks when may be filled.Where the instrument is wanting in any material
particular,thepersoninpossessionthereofhasaprimafacieauthoritytocompleteitbyfilling
uptheblankstherein.Andasignatureonablankpaperdeliveredbythepersonmakingthesignaturein
orderthatthepapermaybeconvertedintoanegotiableinstrumentoperatesasaprimafacieauthority
tofillitupassuchforanyamount..(Emphasissupplied.)

Hence,thelawmerelyrequiresthattheinstrumentbeinthepossessionofapersonother
than the drawer or maker. From such possession, together with the fact that the instrument is
wanting in a material particular, the law presumes agency to fill up the blanks.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/158312.htm

[17]
Because of
6/16

9/16/2016

G.R.No.158312

this, the burden of proving want of authority or that the authority granted was exceeded, is
placedonthepersonquestioningsuchauthority.

[18]
Petitionerfailedtofulfillthisrequirement.

[19]
Next,petitionerclaimsfailureofconsideration.Nevertheless,inaletter
dated
November10,1992,heexpressedwillingnesstopayW.L.Foods,ortoreplacethedishonored
checks.Thiswasaclearacknowledgmentofreceiptofthegoods,whichgaverisetohisdutyto
maintainordepositsufficientfundstocovertheamountofthechecks.
Moresignificantly,wearenotswayedbypetitionersargumentsthatthesingleincidentof
dishonorandhisabsencewhenthechecksweredeliveredbeliefraud.Indeeddamageanddeceit
areessentialelementsoftheoffenseandmustbeestablishedwithsatisfactoryprooftowarrant
conviction.

[20]

Deceit as an element of estafa is a specie of fraud. It is actual fraud which

consists in any misrepresentation or contrivance where a person deludes another, to his hurt.
There is deceit when one is misled by guile, trickery or by other means to believe as true
whatisreallyfalse.

[21]

Primafacie evidence of deceit was established against petitioner with regard to FEBTC
[22]
CheckNo.553615whichwasdishonoredforinsufficiencyoffunds.Theletter
ofpetitioners
counsel dated November 10, 1992 shows beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner received
noticeofthedishonorofthesaidcheckforinsufficiencyoffunds.Petitioner,however,failedto
deposittheamountsnecessarytocoverhischeckwithinthreebankingdaysfromreceiptofthe
noticeofdishonor. Hence, as provided for by law,

[23]
the presence of deceit was sufficiently

proven.
Petitioner failed to overcome the said proof of deceit. The trial court found no pre
existingobligationbetweentheparties.TheexistenceofpriortransactionsbetweenLimandDy
alone did not rule out deceit because each transaction was separate, and had a different
consideration from the others.Even as petitioner was absent when the goods were delivered,
by the principle of agency, delivery of the checks by his driver was deemed as his act as the
employer. The evidence shows that as a matter of course, Dy, or his employee, would pay
W.L. Foods in either cash or check upon pick up of the stocks of snack foods at the latters
branchormainoffice.Despite their twoyear standing business relations prior to the issuance
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/158312.htm

7/16

9/16/2016

G.R.No.158312

ofthesubjectcheck,W.LFoodsemployeeswouldnothavepartedwiththestockswereitnot
for the simultaneous delivery of the check issued by petitioner.

[24]
Aside from the existing

businessrelationsbetweenpetitionerandW.L.Foods,theprimaryinducementforthelatterto
partwithitsstocksofsnackfoodswastheissuanceofthecheckinpaymentofthevalueofthe
saidstocks.

Inanumberofcases,

[25]
theCourthasconsideredgoodfaithasadefensetoachargeof

estafa by postdating a check. This good faith may be manifested by making arrangements for
paymentwiththecreditorandexertingbesteffortstomakegoodthevalueofthechecks.Inthe
instant case petitioner presented no proof of good faith.Noticeably absent from the records is
sufficientproofofsincereandbesteffortsonthepartofpetitionerforthepaymentofthevalue
ofthecheckthatwouldconstitutegoodfaithandnegatedeceit.
Withtheforegoingcircumstancesestablished,wefindpetitionerguiltyofestafawith
regardtoFEBTCCheckNo.553615forP226,794.36.
Thesame,however,doesnotholdtruewithrespecttoFEBTCCheckNo.553602for
P106,579.60.Thischeckwasdishonoredforthereasonthatitwasdrawnagainstuncollected
deposit.PetitionerhadP160,659.39inhissavingsdepositaccountledgerasofJuly22,1992.We
disagreewiththeconclusionoftheRTCthatsincethebalanceincludedaregionalclearingcheck
worthP55,000depositedonJuly20,1992,whichclearedonlyfive(5)dayslater,thenpetitioner
hadinadequatefundsinthisinstance.Sincepetitionertechnicallyandretroactivelyhadsufficient
fundsatthetimeCheckNo.553602waspresentedforpaymentthenthesecondelement
(insufficiencyoffundstocoverthecheck)ofthecrimeisabsent.Alsothereisnoprimafacie
evidenceofdeceitinthisinstancebecausethecheckwasnotdishonoredforlackor
insufficiencyoffunds.Uncollecteddepositsarenotthesameasinsufficientfunds.Theprima
faciepresumptionofdeceitarisesonlywhenacheckhasbeendishonoredforlackor
insufficiencyoffunds.Notably,thelawspeaksofinsufficiencyoffundsbutnotofuncollected
deposits.JurisprudenceteachesthatcriminallawsarestrictlyconstruedagainsttheGovernment
andliberallyinfavoroftheaccused.

[26]
Hence,intheinstantcase,thelawcannotbeinterpreted

orappliedinsuchawayastoexpanditsprovisiontoencompassthesituationofuncollected
depositsbecauseitwouldmakethelawmoreonerousonthepartoftheaccused.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/158312.htm

8/16

9/16/2016

G.R.No.158312

Clearly,theestafapunishedunderArticle315,paragraph2(d)oftheRevisedPenalCode
iscommittedwhenacheckisdishonoredforbeingdrawnagainstinsufficientfundsorclosed
account,andnotagainstuncollecteddeposit.

[27]
Corollarily,theissuerofthecheckisnotliable

forestafaiftheremainingbalanceandtheuncollecteddeposit,whichwasdulycollected,could
satisfytheamountofthecheckwhenpresentedforpayment.
Second,didpetitionerviolateB.P.Blg.22?
Petitionerarguesthattheblankcheckswerenotvalidordersforthebanktopaytheholder
ofsuchchecks.He reiterates lack of knowledge of the insufficiency of funds and reasons that
the checks could not have been issued to apply on account or for value as he did not obtain
deliveryofthegoods.
TheOSGmaintainsthattheguiltofpetitionerhasbeenprovenbeyondreasonabledoubt.
ItcitespiecesofevidencethatpointtoDysculpability:Maracasacknowledgmentthatthechecks
were issued to W.L. Foods as consideration for the snacks Lims testimony proving that Dy
received a copy of the demand letter the bank managers confirmation that petitioner had
insufficient balance to cover the checks and Dys failure to settle his obligation within five (5)
daysfromdishonorofthechecks.
Onceagain,wefindthepetitiontobemeritoriousinpart.
TheelementsoftheoffensepenalizedunderB.P.Blg.22areasfollows:(1)themaking,
drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or for value (2) the knowledge of the
maker,drawerorissuerthatatthetimeofissuehedoesnothavesufficientfundsinorcreditwith
thedraweebankforthepaymentofsuchcheckinfulluponitspresentmentand(3)subsequent
dishonorofthecheckbythedraweebankforinsufficiencyoffundsorcreditordishonorforthe
samereasonhadnotthedrawer,withoutanyvalidcause,orderedthebanktostoppayment.

[28]

Thecaseatbarsatisfiesalltheseelements.
During the joint pretrial conference of this case, Dy admitted that he issued the checks,
and that the signatures appearing on them were his.

[29]
The facts reveal that the checks were

issuedinblankbecauseoftheuncertaintyofthevolumeofproductstoberetrieved,thediscount
thatcanbeavailedof,andthedeductionforbadorders.Nevertheless,wemuststressthatwhat
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/158312.htm

9/16

9/16/2016

G.R.No.158312

thelawpunishesissimplytheissuanceofabouncingcheckandnotthepurposeforwhichitwas
issuednorthetermsandconditionsrelatingthereto.

[30]
Ifinquiryintothereasonforwhichthe

checksareissued,orthetermsandconditionsoftheirissuanceisrequired,thepublicsfaithin
thestabilityandcommercialvalueofchecksascurrencysubstituteswillcertainlyerode.

[31]

Moreover,thegravamenoftheoffenseunderB.P.Blg.22istheactofmakingorissuinga
worthlesscheckoracheckthatisdishonoreduponpresentmentforpayment.Theacteffectively
declarestheoffensetobeoneofmalumprohibitum.Theonlyvalidquery,then,iswhetherthe
lawhasbeenbreached,i.e.,bythemereactofissuingabadcheck,withoutsomuchregardas
to the criminal intent of the issuer.

[32]
Indeed, nonfulfillment of the obligation is immaterial.

Thus,petitionersdefenseoffailureofconsiderationmustlikewisefall.Thisisespeciallysosince
asstatedabove,Dyhasacknowledgedreceiptofthegoods.
Onthesecondelement,petitionerdisputesnoticeofinsufficiencyoffundsonthebasisof
[33]
the check being issued in blank. He relies on Dingle v. Intermediate Appellate Court
and
[34]
Laov.CourtofAppeals
ashisauthorities.Inbothactions,however,theaccusedwereco
signatories, who were neither apprised of the particular transactions on which the blank checks
wereissued,norgivennoticeoftheirdishonor.Inthelattercase,Laosignedthecheckswithout
knowledgeoftheinsufficiencyoffunds,knowledgeshewasnotexpectedorobligedtopossess
undertheorganizationalstructureofthecorporation.

[35]
Lao was only a minor employee who

hadnothingtodowiththeissuance,fundinganddeliveryofchecks.

[36]
In contrast, petitioner

wastheproprietorofDynaMarketingandthesolesignatoryofthecheckswhoreceivednotice
oftheirdishonor.
[37]
Significantly,underSection2
ofB.P.Blg.22,petitionerwasprimafaciepresumedto
knowoftheinadequacyofhisfundswiththebankwhenhedidnotpaythevalueofthegoodsor
make arrangements for their payment in full within five (5) banking days upon notice. His letter
datedNovember10,1992toLimfortifiedsuchpresumption.
Undoubtedly,DyviolatedB.P.Blg.22forissuingFEBTCCheckNo.553615.Whensaid
check was dishonored for insufficient funds and stop payment order, petitioner did not pay or
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/158312.htm

10/16

9/16/2016

G.R.No.158312

makearrangementswiththebankforitspaymentinfullwithinfive(5)bankingdays.
Petitioner should be exonerated, however, for issuing FEBTCCheckNo.553602,which
was dishonored for the reason DAUD or drawn against uncollected deposit. When the check
waspresentedforpayment,itwasdishonoredbythebankbecausethecheckdepositmadeby
petitioner, which would make petitioners bank account balance more than enough to cover the
facevalueofthesubjectcheck,hadnotbeencollectedbythebank.
InTanv.People,

[38]
thisCourtacquittedthepetitionerthereinwhowasindictedunder

B.P.Blg.22,uponacheckwhichwasdishonoredforthereasonDAUD,amongothers.We
observedthat:
Inthesecondplace,evenwithoutrelyingonthecreditline,petitionersbankaccountcoveredthe
checksheissuedbecauseeventhoughthereweresomedepositsthatwerestilluncollectedthedeposits

[39]

becamegoodandthebankcertifiedthatthecheckwasfunded.

[40]
TobeliableunderSection1
ofB.P.Blg.22,thecheckmustbedishonoredbythe
draweebankforinsufficiencyoffundsorcreditordishonoredforthesamereasonhadnotthe
drawer,withoutanyvalidcause,orderedthebanktostoppayment.
Intheinstantcase,eventhoughthecheckwhichpetitionerdepositedonJuly20,1992
becamegoodonlyfive(5)dayslater,hewasconsideredbythebanktoretroactivelyhavehad
P160,659.39inhisaccountonJuly22,1992.Thiswasmorethanenoughtocoverthecheckhe
issuedtorespondentintheamountofP106,579.60.Underthecircumstanceobtaininginthis
[41]
case,wefindthepetitionerhadissuedthecheck,withfullabilitytoabidebyhiscommitment
topayhispurchases.
Significantly,likeArticle315oftheRevisedPenalCode,B.P.Blg.22alsospeaksonlyof
insufficiencyoffundsanddoesnottreatofuncollecteddeposits.Torepeat,wecannotinterpret
thelawinsuchawayastoexpanditsprovisiontoencompassthesituationofuncollected
depositsbecauseitwouldmakethelawmoreonerousonthepartoftheaccused.Again,criminal
statutesarestrictlyconstruedagainsttheGovernmentandliberallyinfavoroftheaccused.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/158312.htm

[42]

11/16

9/16/2016

G.R.No.158312

Asregardspetitionerscivilliability,thisCourthaspreviouslyruledthatanaccusedmaybe
held civilly liable where the facts established by the evidence so warrant.

[43]
The rationale for

thisissimple.Thecriminalandcivilliabilitiesofanaccusedareseparateanddistinctfromeach
other. One is meant to punish the offender while the other is intended to repair the damage
sufferedbytheaggrievedparty.So,forthepurposeofindemnifyingthelatter,theoffenseneed
notbeprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtbutonlybypreponderanceofevidence.

[44]

We therefore sustain the appellate courts award of damages to W.L. Foods in the total
amount of P333,373.96, representing the sum of the checks petitioner issued for goods
admittedlydeliveredtohiscompany.
As to the appropriate penalty, petitioner was charged with estafa under Article 315,
[45]
paragraph2(d)oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamendedbyPresidentialDecreeNo.818
(P.D.
No.818).
[46]
UnderSection1
ofP.D.No.818,iftheamountofthefraudexceedsP22,000,thepenaltyof
reclusin temporal is imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional
P10,000 but the total penalty shall not exceed thirty (30) years, which shall be termed reclusin
perpetua.

[47]
Reclusin perpetua is not the prescribed penalty for the offense, but merely

describesthepenaltyactuallyimposedonaccountoftheamountofthefraudinvolved.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. John Dy is hereby
ACQUITTEDinCriminalCaseNo.Q9346711forestafa,andCriminalCaseNo.Q9346712
for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, but he is ORDERED to pay W.L. Foods the amount of
P106,579.60forgoodsdeliveredtohiscompany.
In Criminal Case No. Q9346713 for estafa, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATION.Petitionerissentencedtosufferanindeterminatepenalty
oftwelve(12)yearsofprisinmayor,asminimum,tothirty(30)yearsofreclusinperpetua, as
maximum.
InCriminalCaseNo.Q9346714forviolationofB.P.Blg.22,theDecisionoftheCourt
ofAppealsisAFFIRMED,andJohnDyisherebysentencedtoone(1)yearimprisonmentand
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/158312.htm

12/16

9/16/2016

G.R.No.158312

orderedtoindemnifyW.L.FoodsintheamountofP226,794.36.
SOORDERED.

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
ActingChiefJustice

WECONCUR:

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice

DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/158312.htm

13/16

9/16/2016

G.R.No.158312

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
ActingChiefJustice

[1]
Rollo,pp.3150.PennedbyAssociateJusticeEliezerR.DeLosSantos,withAssociateJusticesOswaldoD.AgcaoiliandRegalado
E.Maambongconcurring.
[2]
Id.at51.
[3]
Records,pp.438457.PennedbyPresidingJudgeSalvadorC.Ceguera.
[4]
AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR
CREDITANDFOROTHERPURPOSES,approvedApril3,1979.
[5]
Records,p.270.
[6]
ART.315.Swindling(estafa).Anypersonwhoshalldefraudanotherbyanyofthemeansmentionedhereinbelowshallbepunished
by:
xxxx
2.Bymeansofanyofthefollowingfalsepretensesorfraudulentactsexecutedpriortoorsimultaneouslywiththecommissionofthe
fraud:
xxxx
(d)Bypostdatingacheck,orissuingacheckinpaymentofanobligationwhentheoffenderhadnofundsinthebank,orhisfunds
depositedthereinwerenotsufficienttocovertheamountofthecheck.Thefailureofthedrawerofthechecktodeposittheamount
necessarytocoverhischeckwithinthree(3)daysfromreceiptofnoticefromthebankand/orthepayeeorholderthatsaidcheck
has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or
fraudulentact.(AsamendedbyRep.ActNo.4885,approvedJune17,1967.)
xxxx
[7]
Records,pp.2,1415.
[8]
Id.at8,2021.
[9]
Id.at457.
[10]
Rollo,p.49.
[11]
Id.at15.
[12]
ANACTTOAMENDSECTIONTWO,PARAGRAPH(d),ARTICLETHREEHUNDREDFIFTEENOFACTNUMBEREDTHIRTY
EIGHTHUNDREDANDFIFTEEN,ASAMENDED,OTHERWISEKNOWNASTHEREVISEDPENALCODE,approvedJune17,1967.
[13]
Peoplev.Romero,G.R.No.112985,April21,1999,306SCRA90,96.
[14]
AlsoknownasACTNo.2031.ANACTENTITLEDTHENEGOTIABLEINSTRUMENTSLAW,enactedFebruary3,1911.
[15]
DelaVictoriav.Burgos,G.R.No.111190,June27,1995,245SCRA374,379.
[16]
LewisCountyetal.v.StateBankofPeck,170PacificReporter98,100(1918),citingBIGELOW,BILLS,NOTESANDCHECKS,2nd
Ed.,p.13.
[17]
IA.F.AGBAYANI,COMMENTARIESANDJURISPRUDENCEONTHECOMMERCIALLAWSOFTHEPHILIPPINES,168(1987
ed.).
[18]
J.C.CAMPOS,JR.ANDM.C.LOPEZCAMPOS,NOTESANDSELECTEDCASESONNEGOTIABLEINSTRUMENTSLAW,351
(3rded.,1971).
[19]
Records,p.43.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/158312.htm

14/16

9/16/2016

G.R.No.158312

[20]
Peoplev.Ojeda,G.R.Nos.10423858,June3,2004,430SCRA436,445Peoplev.Dimalanta,G.R.No.157039,October1,2004,440
SCRA55,6162.
[21]
Peoplev.Romero,supranote13at97.
[22]
Records,p.43.
[23]
ART.315.Swindling(estafa).
xxxx
(d)xxxThefailureofthedrawerofthechecktodeposittheamountnecessarytocoverhischeckwithinthree(3)daysfromreceiptof
noticefromthebankand/orthepayeeorholderthatsaidcheckhasbeendishonoredforlackorinsufficiencyoffundsshallbe
primafacieevidenceofdeceitconstitutingfalsepretenseorfraudulentact.(AsamendedbyRep.ActNo.4885,approvedJune
17,1967.)(Emphasissupplied.)
[24]
TSN,July19,1995,pp.507,516.
[25]
Peoplev.Ojeda,G.R.Nos.10423858,June3,2004,430SCRA436Peoplev.Dimalanta,G.R.No.157039,October1,2004,440
SCRA55.
[26]
SeeU.S.v.AbadSantos,36Phil243(1917)Peoplev.YuHai,99Phil725,728(1956).
[27]
Cf.Salazarv.People,G.R.No.151931,September23,2003,411SCRA598.
[28]
Navarrov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.Nos.11238990,August1,1994,234SCRA639,643644.
[29]
Records,p.400.
[30]
Cruzv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.108738,June17,1994,233SCRA301,307.
[31]
Peoplev.Nitafan,G.R.No.75954,October22,1992,215SCRA79,85.
[32]
Cuemev.People,G.R.No.133325,June30,2000,334SCRA795,805.
[33]
No.L75243,March16,1987,148SCRA595.
[34]
G.R.No.119178,June20,1997,274SCRA572.
[35]
Id.at590.
[36]
Id.at596.
[37]
SEC.2.Evidenceofknowledgeofinsufficientfunds.Themaking,drawingandissuanceofacheckpaymentofwhichisrefusedby
thedraweebecauseofinsufficientfundsinorcreditwithsuchbank,whenpresentedwithinninety(90)daysfromthedateofthe
check,shallbeprimafacieevidenceofknowledgeofsuchinsufficiencyoffundsorcreditunlesssuchmakerordrawerpaysthe
holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5)
bankingdaysafterreceivingnoticethatsuchcheckhasnotbeenpaidbythedrawee.
[38]
G.R.No.141466,January19,2001,349SCRA777.
[39]
Id.at781.
[40]
SECTION1.Checkswithoutsufficientfunds.Anypersonwhomakesordrawsandissuesanychecktoapplyonaccountorfor
value,knowingatthetimeofissuethathedoesnothavesufficientfundsinorcreditwiththedraweebankforthepaymentofsuch
checkinfulluponitspresentment,whichcheckissubsequentlydishonoredbythedraweebankforinsufficiencyoffundsorcredit
or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop
payment,shallbepunishedbyimprisonmentofnotlessthatthirtydaysbutnotmorethanone(1)yearorbyafineofnotlessthan
butnotmorethandoubletheamountofthecheckwhichfineshallinnocaseexceedTwohundredthousandpesos,orbothsuch
fineandimprisonmentatthediscretionofthecourt.
xxxx
[41]
Cf.Idosv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.110782,September25,1998,296SCRA194,212.
[42]
SeeU.S.v.AbadSantos,supranote26Peoplev.YuHai,supranote26.
[43]
EusebioCalderonv.People,G.R.No.158495,October21,2004,441SCRA137,147.
[44]
Sapierav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.128927,September14,1999,314SCRA370,379.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/158312.htm

15/16

9/16/2016

G.R.No.158312

[45]
AMENDINGARTICLE315OFTHEREVISEDPENALCODEBYINCREASINGTHEPENALTIESFORESTAFACOMMITTEDBY
MEANSOFBOUNCINGCHECKS,doneOctober22,1975.
[46]
SECTION1.Anypersonwhoshalldefraudanotherbymeansoffalsepretensesorfraudulentactsasdefinedinparagraph2(d)of
Article315oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamendedbyRepublicAct.No.4885,shallbepunishedby:
1st.Thepenaltyofreclusiontemporaliftheamountofthefraudisover12,000pesosbutdoesnotexceed22,000pesos,andifsuch
amountexceedsthelattersum,thepenaltyprovidedinthisparagraphshallbeimposedinitsmaximumperiod,addingoneyearfor
eachadditional10,000pesosbutthetotalpenaltywhichmaybeimposedshall[in]nocaseexceedthirtyyears.Insuchcases,and
in connection with the accessorypenalties which may be imposed under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty shall be termed
reclusionperpetua
xxxx
[47]
Peoplev.Hernando,G.R.No.125214,October28,1999,317SCRA617,629.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/158312.htm

16/16