Joy Lee Recuerdo v. People, GR 168217, June 27, 2006, Callejo.

Topic: Disputable Presumptions

Three separate informations charging Recuerdo of Estafa (a dentist) of estafa. She bought several pieces of
jewelry from Yolanda Floro and issued checks as payment in installments (6 checks for each of the 3
transactions for a total of 18 checks). The checks in total amounted to 132K (Unitrust Bank), 78K (PCI Bank) and
600K (Prudential Bank) for each of the information.
Recuerdo's defense was that the trial court of Malolos did not have jurisdiction over the case because she
bought the jewelry and issued the checks in Makati. She also says the checks were not issued and delivered

to Floro simultaneous to the purchase of the pieces of jewelry, but only several days thereafter, when she
had already thoroughly examined the jewelry.
Trial court convicted her. CA affirmed.
ISSUE: WON guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Elements of estafa under Par 2(d) of Art 315 of the RPC:
1. a check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time it is issued;
2. lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and
3. damage to the payee thereof.
Estafa is committed with dolo (malice) and thus malice and specific intent to defraud are required. General
criminal intent is an element of all crimes but malice is properly applied only to deliberate acts done
on purpose and with design. Generally, a specific intent is not presumed. Its existence, as a matter of
fact, must be proved by the State just as any other essential element. This may be shown, however, by the
nature of the act, the circumstances under which it was committed, the means employed and the motive of
the accused. The law provides that, in estafa, prima facie evidence of deceit is established upon proof
that the drawer of the check failed to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three
(3) days from receipt of the notice of dishonor for lack or insufficiency of funds.
Thus in estafa, good faith is a defense (lack of malice) but it must be proved.
Recuerdo raised the defense of good faith as a mere afterthought because she raised it only in her Motion
for Reconsideration of the CA decision. In Pascual v. Ramos, the SC held that if an issue is raised only in
the MR of the appellate court's decision, it is as if it was never raised in that court at all.
Besides, other evidence shows her lack of good faith. She intransigently refused to make payments despite
demands and only started making payments after the CA affirmed her conviction. The deposit slips she
appended in her MR did not even show which checks they were made in payment for.
Also, even if 9 of the 17 checks were honored, and even if she paid every bit of the amounts in the checks,
her criminal liability is not extinguished.
Recuerdo cannot rely on the Ojeda case because Ojeda made prompt gradual payments until she paid all
of her debt.
Conviction affirmed.