F R E E
Subscription to Living, Retiring, Traveling, Business In The Phils. Discussion List
15, 000+ members

In other words, the date the obligation was entered into, being the very date the check was issued or postdated, is a material ingredient of the offense. Hence, not only must said date be specifically and particularly alleged in the information, it must be proved as alleged.

In the present case, the prosecution’s evidence clearly and categorically shows that there was no transaction between the parties on July 30, 1994, for which Check No. 0292014 was issued. In other words, no obligation was contracted on July 30, 1994, for which Check No. 029014 was allegedly postdated by appellant. The situation obtains similarly regarding Check No. 029020. Again there was no obligation contracted by the parties on July 24, 1994 for which appellant allegedly postdated another check. Evidently, the first element of the offense was neither correctly alleged nor proven by the prosecution. 1-lence, appellant cannot be charged much less found guilty of estafa with respect to Checks Nos. 029014 and 029020.

The situation, however, is different with respect to Check No. 029021. Here, the prosecution correctly alleged that an obligation was entered into on July 25, 1994, for which appellant issued Check No. 029021 but postdated September 25, 1994. The material date was not only correctly alleged, it was amply proved by the prosecution’s evidence. We find, moreover, that appellant admitted his failure to cover the amount of said check within three days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or payee or holder that said check had been dishonored. In his defense, appellant insists that his failure to make good the check did not constitute deceit, because he suffered business losses on account of the inferior tires furnished by private complainant. We find no merit in appellant’s contention. Under Article 315 (2) (d), failure of the drawer of the check to deposit an amount sufficient to cover the check within three days from receipt of notice from the bank and! or payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. The record clearly shows that appellant, with his admission, failed to rebut this prima facie presumption.

Nor could appellant rely on People vs. Singson to aid his cause. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, accused was acquitted in Singson because the circumstances of her case negated the existence of bad faith on her part. These circumstances therein were: (a) her prompt action in offering to replace the dishonored checks; (b) partial payments made by her; and (c) the fact that complainant knew that she had insufficient funds at the time that she had insufficient funds at the same time she issued the checks. None of these circumstances obtains in the present case. Instead, appellant’s actions are to the contrary. Thus, he avoided and delayed meeting with complainant and the latter’s representatives when asked about the dishonored check. He never advised complainant about the insufficiency of funds in his bank account. After the checks were dishonored, appellant made no effort to settle, even partially, his account. Taken all together, the foregoing actions of appellant paint a picture of bad faith on his part. Appellant must, therefore, be found guilty of one count of estafa anent Check No. 029021. As to the two other charges involving material variances in the date of the transactions and the issuance of the postdated Check No. 029020 and 029014, the criminal charges ought to be dismissed for being erroneously filed against appellant. But the payee has the right to pursue the proper civil action therefore, while the drawer has also the corresponding right to put up his defenses in a civil case.

Coming now to the lone count of estafa properly charged, it is not disputed that Check No. 029021 was for the amount of P26,400. It was postdated September 25, 1994, to cover the purchase of four sets of tires bought by appellant on July 25, 1994. in the amendment to the Revised Penal Code, pursuant to P.D. No. 8l8 the offense and the prescribed penalty are set forth as follows:

SEC. 1. Any person who shall defraud another by means of false pretense 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:

1st. The penalty of reclusion temporal if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceed the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos but the total penalty which may be imposed shall in no case exceed thirty years. in such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty shall be termed reclusion perpetua.

Since the face value of Check No. 029021, for which appellant is criminally liable for estafa, exceeds P22,000, the penalty above cited must be “imposed in its maximum period, adding 1 year for each adclitionalPl0,000.” Pursuant to People vs. Hernando, G.R. No. 125214, Oct. 28, 1999, an indeterminate sentence shall be imposed on the accused, computed favorably to him. in this case, the indeterminate sentence should be computed based on the maximum period of reclusion temporal as maximum, which is from 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 20 years. The minimum period of the sentence should be within the penalty next lower in degree as provided in the Revised Penal Code, i.e., prison mayor, which is from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years imprisonment. Considering that the excess of the fraud committed, counting from the base of P22,000, is only P4,000, which is less than the P10,000 stated in P.D. 818, there is no need to add one year to the maximum penalty abovecited.

The trial court, however, sentenced appellant in this case to suffer from 20 years and! 1 day of reclusion perpetua as minimum to 28 years of reclusion perpetua as maximum. Appellant originally appealed said judgment to the Court of Appeals. But the records were forwarded to this Court on the ground that “Life imprisonment is involved.44 The act of forwarding the records to us, rather than to the Court of Appeals, was obviously done pursuantto Article VIII, Section 5of the Constitution.45 However, we find the reason, “Life imprisonment is involved” to be patently erroneous. The Revised Penal Code, which was amended by P.D. No. 818, does not provide for life imprisonment but aberrantly for reclusion perpetua, which is not synonymous to life imprisonment. In any event, we now find that neither reclusion perpetua nor life imprisonment is here involved. The penalty is accordingly modified, taking into account the maximum as set by PD. 818, which is twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, and the minimum penalty computed under the Intermediate Sentence Law which is six (6) years and one (1) day of prison mayor.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 164 in Criminal Case No.107866 is hereby MODIFIED. Appellant ALEXANDER DINGLASAN is found GUILTY of one (1) count of Estafa and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 6 years and 1 day of prison mayor as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum; and to pay the attended party, Charles Q. Sia, the amount of P26,400.00, the face value of the check, as actual damages. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Chapter 2

THE BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (Batas Pambansa BIg. 22)

“The Bouncing Chocks Law was devised to safeguard the interest of the banking system and legitimate public checking account user. It was not designed to favor or encourage those who seek to enrich themselves through manipulation and circumventing the purpose of the law.”
—Mr. Justice Quisumbing

AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR OTIHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the l3atasang Pam bansa. in session assembled:

SECTION 1. Checks without sufficient funds. —

Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the draws bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check which fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of check which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such find and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawer bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank. Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.

Bad Check defined.

A bad check is a check that is not honored because the account either contains insufficient funds or does not exist. It is also called a hot check, worthless check, rubber check, worthless check, bounced check, cold check, false check, or dry check.

Two distinct acts penalized in the Bouncing Checks Law

An analysis of Section 1 shows that the Bouncing Checks Law punishes two (2) distinct acts: (1) making or drawing and issuing any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that the drawer does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank; and (2) having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank shall fail to keel) sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) clays from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.3