Pacheco V CA
Pacheco V CA
*
G.R. No. 126670. December 2, 1999.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001655b87c05720a8dda0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
8/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 319
the loans because she was informed that they no longer have
funds in their RCBC accounts. In 1992, when the Vicencio family
asked Virginia to place a date on the check, the latter again
informed Mrs.
____________
* FIRST DIVISION.
596
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001655b87c05720a8dda0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/15
8/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 319
bank at the time it was issued to him does not give rise to a case
for estafa through bouncing checks.
Same; Same; Same; Same; A check must be presented within a
reasonable time from issue.—A check must be presented within a
reasonable time from issue. By current banking practice, a check
becomes stale after more than six (6) months. In fact a check long
overdue for more than two and one-half years is considered stale.
In this case, the checks were issued more than three years prior to
their presentment. In his complaint, complainant alleged that
petitioners bought jewelry from him and that he would not have
parted
597
with his jewelry had not petitioners issued the checks. The
evidence on record, however, does not support the theory of the
crime.
Same; Same; Same; Awareness by the complainant of the
fictitious nature of the pretense cannot give rise to estafa by means
of deceit.—Following complainant’s theory that he would not have
sold the jewelries had not petitioners issued “postdated” checks,
still no estafa can be imputed to petitioners. It is clear that the
checks were not intended for encashment with the bank, but were
delivered as mere security for the payment of the loan and under
an agreement that the checks would be redeemed with cash as
they fell due. Hence, the checks were not intended by the parties
to be modes of payment but only as promissory notes. Since
complainant and his wife were well aware of that fact, they
cannot now complain there was deception on the part of
petitioners. Awareness by the complainant of the fictitious nature
of the pretense cannot give rise to estafa by means of deceit.
When the payee was informed by the drawer that the checks are
not covered by adequate funds it does not give rise to bad faith or
estafa.
Same; Same; Same; Persons are presumed to have taken care
of their business.—Complainant’s allegations that the two subject
checks were issued in 1992 as payment for the jewelry he
allegedly sold to petitioners is belied by the evidence on record.
First, com-plainant is not engaged in the sale of jewelry. Neither
are petitioners. If the pieces of jewelry were important to
complainant considering that they were with him for more than
twenty-five years already, he would not have easily parted with
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001655b87c05720a8dda0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/15
8/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 319
598
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001655b87c05720a8dda0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/15
8/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 319
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
________________
599
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001655b87c05720a8dda0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/15
8/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 319
check (RCBC check no. 101756) but Mrs. Vicencio told her
that her filing clerk was absent. Despite several demands
for the return of the first check, Mrs. Vicencio told Virginia
that they can no longer locate the folder containing that
check. For the new loan, she also required Virginia to issue
three (3) more checks in various amounts—two checks for
P20,000.00 each and the third check for P10,000.00.
Petitioners were not amenable to these requirements, but
Mrs. Vicencio insisted that they issue the same assuring
them that the checks will not be presented to the banks but
will merely serve as guarantee for the loan since there was
no promissory note required of them. Due to her dire
financial needs, Virginia issued three undated RCBC
checks numbered 101783 and 101784 in the sum of
P20,000.00 each and 101785 for P10,000.00, and again in-
_______________
600
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001655b87c05720a8dda0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/15
8/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 319
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001655b87c05720a8dda0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/15
8/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 319
602
Court
5
of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the court a
quo. Hence this petition.
Estafa may be committed in several ways. One of these
is by postdating a check or issuing a check in payment of
an obligation, as provided in Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of
the RPC, viz.:
x x x x x x x x x
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001655b87c05720a8dda0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/15
8/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 319
________________
amended by Republic Act 4885 and Presidential Decree 818, as charged under
the informations and sentences each, to wit:
In Criminal Case No. C-1708, to suffer an imprisonment ranging from EIGHT
(8) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, as
minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of
reclusion temporal, as maximum, to jointly and severally indemnify Atty.
Romualdo Vicencio in the amount of P15,000.00 and to pay the costs; and,
In Criminal Case No. C-1709, to suffer an imprisonment ranging from EIGHT
(8) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to TEN (10)
YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY, as maximum, of prision mayor,
to indemnify jointly and severally Atty. Romualdo Vicencio in the amount of
P10,000.00 and to pay the costs. SO ORDERED.” (Rollo, p. 128).
5 The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision promulgated
March 19, 1996 penned by Justice Romeo Callejo, Sr. with Justices Antonio
Martinez (now a retired member of this Court) and Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis,
concurring, p. 14 reads: “IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the Decision
appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. With costs against the Appellants.
SO ORDERED.” (Rollo, p. 21).
603
The first and third elements are not present in this case. A
check has the character of negotiability and at the same
time it constitutes an evidence of indebtedness. By mutual
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001655b87c05720a8dda0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/15
8/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 319
_______________
6 People v. Ong, 204 SCRA 942 (1991); People v. Tugbang, 196 SCRA
341 (1991); Sales v. CA, 164 SCRA 717 (1988); People v. Sabio, Jr., 86
SCRA 568 (1978).
7 People v. Tugbang, 196 SCRA 341 (1991).
604
________________
8 Buaya v. Polo, 169 SCRA 471 (1989); People v. Grospe, 157 SCRA 154
(1988); US v. Rivera, 23 Phil. 383.
9 When date may be inserted.—Where an instrument expressed to be
payable at a fixed period after date is issued undated, or where the
acceptance of an instrument payable at a fixed period after sight is
undated, any holder may insert therein the true date of issue or acceptance,
and the instrument shall be payable accordingly. The insertion of a wrong
date does not avoid the instrument in the hands of a subsequent holder in
due course; but as to him, the date so inserted is to be regarded as the true
date. (Italics supplied).
10 Ante-dated and post-dated.—The instrument is not invalid for the
reason only that it is ante-dated or post-dated, provided this is not done
for an illegal or fraudulent purpose. The person to whom an instrument so
dated is delivered acquires the title thereto as of the date of delivery.
605
________________
606
_______________
607
________________
20 Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Ltd. v. CA, 342 Phil. 187, 276
SCRA 224 (1997), citing among others Vda. de Alcantara v. CA, 252 SCRA
457 (1996); Republic v. IAC, 196 SCRA 335 (1991); Fernan v. CA, et al.,
181 SCRA 546 (1990); People v. Traya, 147 SCRA 381 (1987); Tolentino v.
de Jesus, 56 SCRA 67 (1974).
21 Cited in Daggers v. Van Dyck, 37 N.J. Eq., 130, 132; See also People
v. Cara, 283 SCRA 96 (1997).
22 People v. Tugbang, 196 SCRA 341 (1991); Nuñez v. CA, G.R. No.
80216, December 7, 1988, Minute Resolution.
608
——o0o——
_________________
609
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001655b87c05720a8dda0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/15