Professional Documents
Culture Documents
_______________
*SECOND DIVISION.
60
Dy vs. People
61
Dy vs. People
the time Check No. 553602 was presented for payment then the
second element (insufficiency of funds to cover the check) of the
crime is absent. Also there is no prima facie evidence of deceit
in this instance because the check was not dishonored for lack
or insufficiency of funds. Uncollected deposits are not the same
as insufficient funds. The prima facie presumption of deceit
arises only when a check has been dishonored for lack or
insufficiency of funds. Notably, the law speaks of insufficiency
of funds but not of uncollected deposits. Jurisprudence teaches
that criminal laws are strictly construed against the
Government and liberally in favor of the accused. Hence, in the
instant case, the law cannot be interpreted or applied in such a
way as to expand its provision to encompass the situation of
uncollected deposits because it would make the law more
onerous on the part of the accused. Clearly, the estafa punished
under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code is
committed when a check is dishonored for being drawn against
insufficient funds or closed account, and not against uncollected
deposit. Corollarily, the issuer of the check is not liable for
estafa if the remaining balance and the uncollected deposit,
which was duly collected, could satisfy the amount of the check
when presented for payment.
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22; Bouncing Checks Law; Elements.
The elements of the offense penalized under B.P. Blg. 22 are
as follows: (1) the making, drawing and issuance of any check
to apply to 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 such check in full upon its presentment; and (3)
subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason
had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank
to stop payment. The case at bar satisfies all these elements.
Same; Same; Estafa; What the law punishes is simply the
issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it
was issued nor the terms and conditions relating theretothe
only valid query, then, is whether the law has been breached,
i.e., by the mere act of issuing a bad check, without so much
regard as to the criminal intent of the issuer.During the joint
pre-trial conference of this case, Dy admitted that he issued the
checks, and that the signatures appearing on them were his.
The facts reveal that the checks were issued in
62
Dy vs. People
Dy vs. People
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 31-50. Penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. De Los
Santos, with Associate Justices Oswaldo D. Agcaoili and Regalado E.
Maambong concurring.
2Id., at p. 51.
3 Records, pp. 438-457. Penned by Presiding Judge Salvador C.
Ceguera.
64
_______________
65
5Records, p. 270.
6 ART. 315. Swindling (estafa).Any person who shall defraud
another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished
by:
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:
xxxx
(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.
The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary
to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the
bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for
lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie
66
_______________
xxxx
7Records, pp. 2, 14-15.
67
_______________
68
_______________
9Id., at p. 457.
69
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE
PROSECUTION HAS PROVEN THE GUILT OF ACCUSED
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF ESTAFA ON TWO (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 REASONABLE DOUBT OF VIOLATION OF BP 22
ON TWO (2) COUNTS?
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AWARDING DAMAGES TO
PRIVATE COMPLAINANT, W.L. FOOD PRODUCTS, THE
TOTAL SUM OF [P]333,373.96?11
_______________
10Rollo, p. 49.
11Id., at p. 15.
70
_______________
71
_______________
72
_______________
73
_______________
74
_______________
75
VOL. 571, NOVEMBER 14, 2008 75
Dy vs. People
_______________
26See U.S. v. Abad Santos, 36 Phil. 243 (1917); People v. Yu Hai, 99
Phil. 725, 728 (1956).
27Cf. Salazar v. People, G.R. No. 151931, September 23, 2003, 411
SCRA 598.
76
77
The only valid query, then, is whether the law has been
breached, i.e., by the mere act of issuing a bad check,
without so much regard as to the criminal intent of the
issuer.32 Indeed, non-fulfillment of the obligation is
immaterial. Thus, petitioners defense of failure of
consideration must likewise fall. This is especially so
since as stated above, Dy has acknowledged receipt of the
goods.
On the second element, petitioner disputes notice of
insufficiency of funds on the basis of the check being
issued in blank. He relies on Dingle v. Intermediate
Appellate Court33 and Lao v. Court of Appeals34 as his
authorities. In both actions, however, the accused were
co-signatories, who were neither apprised of the
particular transactions on which the blank checks were
issued, nor given notice of their dishonor. In the latter
case, Lao signed the checks without knowledge of the
insufficiency of funds, knowledge she was not expected or
obliged to possess under the organizational structure of
the corporation.35 Lao was only a minor employee who
had nothing to do with the issuance, funding and
delivery of checks.36 In contrast, petitioner was the
proprietor of Dyna Marketing and the sole signatory of
the checks who received notice of their dishonor.
Significantly, under Section 237 of B.P. Blg. 22,
petitioner was prima facie presumed to know of the
inadequacy of his
_______________
32Cueme v. People, G. R. No. 133325, June 30, 2000, 334 SCRA 795,
805.
33No. L-75243, March 16, 1987, 148 SCRA 595.
34G.R. No. 119178, June 20, 1997, 274 SCRA 572.
35Id., at p. 590.
36Id., at p. 596.
37 SEC. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds.The
making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused
by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank,
when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check,
shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds
or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the
78
funds with the bank when he did not pay the value of the
goods or make arrangements for their payment in full
within five (5) banking days upon notice. His letter dated
November 10, 1992 to Lim fortified such presumption.
Undoubtedly, Dy violated B.P. Blg. 22 for issuing
FEBTC Check No. 553615. When said check was
dishonored for insufficient funds and stop payment order,
petitioner did not pay or make arrangements with the
bank for its payment in full within five (5) banking days.
Petitioner should be exonerated, however, for issuing
FEBTC Check No. 553602, which was dishonored for the
reason DAUD or drawn against uncollected deposit.
When the check was presented for payment, it was
dishonored by the bank because the check deposit made
by petitioner, which would make petitioners bank
account balance more than enough to cover the face
value of the subject check, had not been collected by the
bank.
_______________
79
_______________
80
_______________
42See U.S. v. Abad Santos, supra note 26; People v. Yu Hai, supra
note 26.
43Eusebio-Calderon v. People, G.R. No. 158495, October 21, 2004,
441 SCRA 137, 147.
44 Sapiera v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128927, September 14,
1999, 314 SCRA 370, 379.
45 Amending Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code by Increasing
the Penalties for Estafa Committed by Means of Bouncing Checks, done
October 22, 1975.
46SECTION 1. Any person who shall defraud another by means of
false pretenses or fraudulent acts as defined in paragraph 2(d) of
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act. No.
4885, shall be punished by:
81
_______________
82