Manuel y Cadiz v. People
G.R. No. 213640
April 12, 2023
FACTS:
Version
of the Prosecution
During trial, the prosecution
presented the following witnesses: (1) Artates, booker of live chickens and an
employee of Ebot's Farm; (2) Elizabeth De Leon, Farm Manager and checker of
Ebot's Farm; and (3) Bernardo, Branch Manager of PNB-Poblacion, Sta. Maria,
Bulacan Branch. According to the prosecution, private complainant Uy was
allegedly the owner of "Ebot's Farm," a farm engaged in the chicken
grower business. On the other hand, petitioner is a long time customer of
Ebot's Farm and would call in the morning to place her orders for live chickens
with Artates, the booker for Ebot's farm. After that, she would instruct her
husband, Rolando, or nephew, Cadiz, to pick up the chickens in the evening, and
deliver the corresponding check payments for the purchases made. Artates
testified that petitioner on several dates in November 2005 placed various
orders for live chickens. Rolando, the husband of petitioner, picked up the
chickens from Ebot's Farm and delivered PNB checks as payment therefor. The
checks issued by petitioner were in the name of Uy.
When
the foregoing checks were presented for payment to the bank, the same were
dishonored for the reason "Account Closed." Thus, several demand
letters were sent to petitioner, which were left unheeded. The total value of
the foregoing PNB checks amounted to P889,606.00. This prompted Uy to file a
criminal complaint 11 against petitioner for violation of Batas Pambansa (B.P.)
Blg. 22 and Article 315, paragraph 2 (d) of the RPC. Resultantly, two sets of
Information were filed, in particular: (1) an Information for Estafa under
Article 315, paragraph 2 (d) of the RPC docketed as Criminal Case No.
2450-M-0007, which is subject of the present petition; and (2) 10 Informations
for each count of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 docketed as Criminal Case Nos.
2554-2563, which were filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Rafael,
Bulacan. During trial, the prosecution's witness, Bernardo, Branch Manager of
the PNB-Poblacion, Sta. Maria, Bulacan Branch testified that the date and
signature in the PNB checks were in the hand writing of petitioner. However,
Bernardo noted that the writings for the name of the payee and the amount were
not made by the hand of petitioner.
Version of the Defense
The defense on the other hand
presented the sole testimony of petitioner to deny the charges against her. According
to petitioner, she was engaged in the trading of live chickens and as part of
her business, she would purchase live chickens from different growers/farms.
Among the farms where she would purchase the live chickens was Ebot's farm,
which is where Artates works and whom petitioner was familiar with. However,
petitioner argued that Ebot's farm was owned by a certain Alex Uson (Uson), and
not Uy. Artates would usually call petitioner to book her orders of live
chickens. Petitioner would then issue blank checks, filling out only the date
and signature, and leaving out the name of the payee and amount. Thereafter,
Rolando or Cadiz would pick up the chicken and leave the blank checks as
guarantee for their payment.
Petitioner admitted that she
received several live chickens from Ebot's farm which she ordered through
Artates and for which she issued several blank PNB checks. 17 Petitioner admits
that she wrote the date and signed them but left the name of the payee and
amount blank. When confronted with the subject PNB checks, petitioner denied
having entered the name of Uy as payee for the said checks. Petitioner did not
know why Uy was made the payee of the check, but she never questioned them as
she trusted Artates, with whom she was directly transacting with. Petitioner
admitted that she was aware that the checks would not be funded on time, and
thus, approached the owner of Ebot's farm, Uson, to ask him not to present the
checks for encashment and to renegotiate the payment for her orders of live
chicken. Petitioner further claimed that she did not defraud Uy, since she did
not transact with the latter. Petitioner argued that the PNB check were issued
in connection with her order of live chickens from Ebot's farm, which was owned
by Uson. Moreover, petitioner repeatedly pointed out and complained the failure
of the prosecution to present Uy during trial. In fact, petitioner highlighted
that Uy never attended any hearing during the proceedings before the RTC.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not petitioner is guilty of estafa.
HELD:
No. The
elements of Estafa under Art. 315 of the RPC are: 1.) the offender has
postdated or issued a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time
of the postdating or issuance; 2.) at the time of postdating or issuance of
said check, the offender has no funds in the bank or the funds deposited were
not sufficient to cover the amount of the check; and 3.) the payee has been defrauded.
In
Juaquico v. People, the Court reiterated that Estafa by postdating or issuing a
bad check, deceit and damage are essential elements of the offense and have to
be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction, while the false
pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to, or simultaneous with,
the issuance of the bad check.
No comments:
Post a Comment