CRIM2: People VS Juliano

PEOPLE VS JULIANO

G.R. No. 134120

January 17, 2005

FACTS:

This case was certified for review by the Court of Appeals after finding appellant Lea Sagan Juliano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d), of the Revised Penal Code, in Criminal Case No. 2053.

Appellant was charged of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law) in Criminal Cases Nos. 2051 and 2052, and Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (d), of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 2053

On July 27, 1991, appellant Lea Sagan Juliano purchased sacks of milled rice worth P89,800 from the complainant JCT. She issued postdated Check, dated July 30, 1991 for P89,800 in payment of the goods. On July 30, 1991, JCT’s acting manager, encashed the check, but the drawee bank refused payment because it was drawn against insufficient funds.

Appellant went to JCT’s office and JCTshowed her the check that bounced. Appellant pleaded that JCT accept two checks to replace the first check that was dishonored, and JCT agreed. JCT encashed the two replacement checks, but they were dishonored by the drawee bank. The bank issued two Check Return Slips indicating that payment was refused because the checks were "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds." JCT sent a demand letterto appellant informing her of the dishonor of the replacement checks. Appellant received the demand letter.

The trial court found that appellant was guilty of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d), of the Revised Penal Code for issuing the first check, and violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for issuing the two replacement checks. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:

WHEREFORE, upon all the foregoing considerations, the Court finds the accused, Lea Sagan Juliano, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks law, and of the crime of Estafa under Article 315, 2 (d).

Appellant appealed her conviction for Estafa to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court found appellant guilty of the offense.

ISSUE: The accused could not be found guilty of estafa under Article 315, 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused employed deceit constituting false pretenses or any fraudulent act.

HELD/RACIO DECIDENDI:

The decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 2053, is set aside and appellant Lea Sagan Juliano is ACQUITTED of the crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d), of the Revised Penal Code.

The elements of Estafa are as follows: (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; (3) the payee has been defrauded. Damage and deceit are essential elements of the offense and must 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. The drawer of the dishonored check is given three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to cover the amount of the check, otherwise, a prima facie presumption of deceit arises.

In accepting the two replacement checks and surrendering the first check to appellant instead of demanding payment under the first check on the same day that JCT’s Acting Manager informed appellant of the dishonor of the first check, JCT led appellant to believe that she no longer had to deposit the necessary amount to cover the first check within three days from the verbal notice of dishonor. On July 31, 1991, appellant’s balance in her account with PCIB Isulan Branch was P78,400. It is possible that appellant could have deposited P11,400 to make good the first check worth P89,800 if JCT made it clear that it was demanding payment under the first check.

It would have been different if JCT accepted the replacement checks three days after appellant’s receipt of the verbal notice of dishonor of the first check, because by then theprima facie evidence of deceit against appellant for failure to deposit the amount necessary to cover the first check within three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor, under Article 315, paragraph 2(d), of the Revised Penal Code, would have been established.

Under the circumstances of this case, the fact that appellant no longer deposited the amount necessary to cover the first check, within the required period cannot be considered prima facie evidence of deceit against appellant. For it was due to complainant JCT’s own act of accepting the replacement checks and surrendering the first check to appellant that appellant was no longer obliged to deposit the amount necessary to cover the first check within three days from receipt of the verbal notice of dishonor as JCT was no longer holding her liable for payment under the said check.

In failing to prove the element of deceit by appellant, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d), of the Revised Penal Code.