569 Phil. 559
CARPIO, J.:
That in October 1996, and for sometime subsequent thereto, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent, with intent of gain and by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud, to wit: knowing that she did not have sufficient funds deposited with the Allied Bank, Lapulapu-Cebu Branch, and without informing one Msgr. Romualdo Kintanar of that circumstance, with intent to defraud the latter, did then and there issue, make or draw the following checks, to wit:
CHECK NO. | | AMOUNT | | DATE |
| | | | |
PA 0844754 | | P 50,000.00 | | January 26, 1997 |
| | | | |
PA 0844755 | | P 50,000.00 | | January 26, 1997 |
| | | | |
| TOTAL | P 100,000.00 | | |
in the total amount of P 100,000.00 which were issued in payment of an obligation, but when said checks were presented to the drawee bank for encashment the same were dishonored for reason of “Account Closed” and inspite of repeated demands made upon her to make good the checks she failed and refused, and up to the present time still fails and refuses to do, to the damage and prejudice of Msgr. Romualdo Kintanar in the amount of P100,000.00 Philippine Currency.The trial court established the following facts:
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
The prosecution’s evidence shows that the private complainant, Msgr. Romualdo Kintanar is the Parish Priest of the Guadalupe Parish Church, Guadalupe, Cebu City. [Booc] was introduced to [Fr. Kintanar] by his two friends and during that meeting [Booc] has shown her interest in helping the Parish. [Fr. Kintanar] was very much impressed by the gesture of [Booc]. About a month thereafter, [Booc] came back and told [Fr. Kintanar] about her financial problem and asked him to help her. As [Booc] was told by [Fr. Kintanar] that he has no money to help her, [Booc] asked him if he could secure a loan for [her] in the amount of P100,000.00. [Fr. Kintanar] was assured by [Booc] that there would be no problem about the payment because she has the means to pay the loan on due dates [sic] and [she] promised [Fr. Kintanar] to donate more to the church. To assure further [Fr. Kintanar] of her willingness to pay and means to pay, [Booc] issued to him two (2) postdated checks in the amount of P50,000.00 each (Exhs. “A” and “B”) and another postdated check of P100,000.00 as donation to the church. Hence, [Fr. Kintanar] applied for a loan with the RC Lending Investor in the amount of P100,000.00, which was readily granted. The loan was payable for three (3) months at 5% monthly interest or the amount of P115,000.00 including the monthly interest for three (3) months. The amount of P100,000.00 was in trun [sic] delivered by [Fr. Kintanar] to [Booc].On 7 June 1999, the trial court rendered a decision convicting Booc of the crime charged, thus:
It appears that the two (2) checks (Exhs. “A” and “B”) are both postdated January 26, 1997, the date when the loan matured and when the said checks were presented for payment when due, the same were dishonored for the reason that the account of [Booc] was closed, per debit advise (Exhs. “A-1” and “B-1”) with the annotation “Account Closed” (Exh. “A-1-A”). [Booc] was advised or informed about the dishonor of her checks and, despite the extensions given her, [Booc] failed to redeem or make good her checks or to pay the same. And [Fr. Kintanar] was forced to pay his loan with the [sic] RC Lending Investor.
The evidence for the defense is built up by the testimony of [Booc] who has shown her desire to pay [Fr. Kintanar]. [Booc] did not deny her obligation with [sic] Fr. Kintanar and admitted having issued the bouncing checks (Exhs. “A” and “B”). That her failure to pay [Fr. Kintanar] was due to the failure of her two (2) friends to pay her the amount of money they received from her from the proceeds of the loan obtained for her by [Fr. Kintanar]. To show that she did not defraud [Fr. Kintanar], she paid the amount of P20,000.00 thru the counsel of [Fr. Kintanar] per Cash Voucher dated July 23, 1998. (Exh. “1”)[3]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused NORMA BOOC guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. Accordingly, the said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twenty-two (22) years of reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties, to indemnify the complaining witness the sum of P80,000.00 and to pay the costs.On 24 June 1999, Booc filed a Notice of Appeal appealing the trial court’s decision to the Court of Appeals.
In view of the penalty herein imposed, the accused is hereby ordered restored to the custody of the law, and, in case of appeal, the accused is hereby ordered confined in the National Bureau of Prisons thru the Bagong Buhay Rehabilitation Center (BBRC), Cebu City, pending the resolution of her appeal.
SO ORDERED.[4]
We agree with the ruling of the trial court that Booc is guilty of estafa as defined in Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. In explaining its ruling, the trial court stated:
- Whether the two (2) postdated checks issued by Booc constitutes the efficient cause of the alleged defraudation of Kintanar;
- Whether the two (2) postdated checks issued by Booc to Kintanar were intended as payment for an obligation contracted prior to or simultaneous with their issuance or merely as security for a pre-existing one;
- Whether the series of extensions given by Kintanar to Booc, covering a period of nearly seven (7) months, within which she could “settle [her] overdue obligation”, and not specifically to make good her checks, effectively converted whatever incipient criminal liability Booc had into merely a civil one;
- Assuming arguendo that Booc is guilty of the crime charged, whether or not the penalty imposed, which is imprisonment for twenty-two (22) years of reclusion perpetua, is the proper penalty in view of the Indeterminate Sentence Law; and
- Whether, in adjudging the civil liability of Booc, the amount of P20,000.00 she deposited with Kintanar on 23 July 1998 should be deducted from her outstanding obligation.[5]
From the evidence adduced, the Court is of the view that [Fr. Kintanar] was persuaded to part the amount of P100,000.00 because of the issuance by [Booc] of the two (2) postdated checks (Exhs. “A” and “B”) and her promise to donate to the Parish the amount of P100,000.00. Although this supposed donation was also in postdated check which also bounced, the said bouncing check was not included in the instant charge because, according to [Fr. Kintanar], the said check was intended as a donation. To the mind of the Court, the said supposed donation was made by [Booc] as part of her inducement to [Fr. Kintanar] in order that the latter would help her in her financial problem. These findings find support in the testimony of [Fr. Kintanar], thus:
ATTY. LOPEZ: | |
Q: | What motivated you in order to agree to the request of Norma Booc for loan assistance? |
| |
A: | I repeat as a trustworthy [sic] that according to her she is very much willing to help the Parish. I really trust her from the very beginning. |
| |
Q: | What about her capacity to pay the loan? |
| |
A: | Because of her willingness to give extra donation to the Parish I was impressed that she have [sic] the capacity to pay the loan. |
| (TSN: page 9, hearing on September 10, 1998) |
| |
COURT: | |
| |
Q: | What was that form of assurance that she would pay that loan? |
| |
A: | She gave me 2 checks she told me that the checks were good. |
| |
Q: | Would you have borrowed (sic) her that amount without those checks given to you? |
| |
A: | No way. |
| |
Q: | What you are trying to tell the Court is that you have parted way [sic] that amount because of her assurance that the checks she gave you were good checks? |
| |
A: | That’s right. (TSN: page 4, hearing on October 14, 1998) |
In view of all the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion, as so holds, that [Booc] has committed the crime of Estafa as defined and penalized in Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, which provides, thus:
(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 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 evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. |
Under the aforequoted legal provisions [sic], the imposable penalty for the offense is reclusion temporal if the amount of the fraud is over P12,000.00 but does not exceed P22,000.00, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional P10,000.00 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.[6]The elements of estafa under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code are the following:
All the elements are present in this case. First, Booc issued postdated Allied Bank Check Nos. PA 0844754-55 to obtain money from Fr. Kintanar. Fr. Kintanar would not have exerted efforts to obtain money to loan to Booc unless Booc issued him the postdated checks. Second, when the checks were presented for payment, the bank stated that Booc’s account was closed. Repeated oral and written demands upon Booc to make good the checks prior to the filing of the present case did not produce any result. Booc made a partial payment of P20,000 to the secretary of Fr. Kintanar’s counsel only after the filing of the present case. Booc further claims that there was no deceit on her part when she issued the postdated checks, and Fr. Kintanar was supposed to know that she had no money because she borrowed money from him. Booc’s claim is untenable. Booc herself assured Fr. Kintanar that the checks would be good when presented for payment on due date. Finally, there was damage to Fr. Kintanar, who borrowed P100,000 to lend to Booc.
- Postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued;
- Lack of sufficiency of funds to cover the check; and
- Damage to the payee.[7]
Ist. The penalty of reclusion temporal if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; and if such amount exceeds 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 not 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.The amount misappropriated in this case is P100,000. The minimum term of Booc’s indeterminate sentence, being next lower in degree to that prescribed in the statute, is prision mayor. The maximum term of Booc’s indeterminate sentence, on the other hand, should be within the maximum period of reclusion perpetua, which is 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years, plus 1 year for each additional P10,000.[10]