G.R. No. 56679 June 29, 1989
ROBERTO TUGBANG, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Roberto Tugbang was convicted of estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution established that on May 5, 1977, Tugbang induced his sister-in-law, Araceli de los Santos, to give him P10,000.00 in cash in exchange for his postdated check of the same amount, claiming he could not encash it as the bank was closed. Araceli deposited the check the next day, but it was dishonored on May 12, 1977, for insufficient funds. Despite demand, Tugbang failed to make good the amount, leading to the criminal complaint.
Tugbang denied the prosecution’s account, claiming the check was issued a month earlier as payment for a one-carat emerald ring he purchased from Araceli for P7,000.00, with the amount rounded to P10,000.00 due to accrued interest and after deducting previous payments. He argued that since the check was for a pre-existing obligation, he incurred only civil liability. He also questioned the credibility of Araceli’s testimony, noting inconsistencies in the date and the lack of corroborating witnesses.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Tugbang’s conviction for estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found Tugbang’s defense of a ring purchase to be a “palpable concoction,” lacking credible details such as a written agreement, a description of the ring, or proof of its pawn. In contrast, Araceli’s testimony was deemed credible and sufficient to establish estafa. The Court held that the minor inconsistency regarding the date did not detract from the core credibility of her account. On the legal qualification of the offense, while the information cited Article 315, par. 2(a), and the trial court’s dispositive portion referenced it, the imposed penalty of eight years and two months to ten years and ten months was correct under Presidential Decree No. 818, which amended the penalties for violations of Article 315, par. 2(d). The Court noted that under the rules, when an offense is alleged to have been committed in multiple modes, it suffices to prove one mode constituting the substantive crime. Thus, the conviction was proper under Article 315, par. 2(d), for issuing a bouncing check. The decree was effective before the offense and was not an ex post facto law. The presumption of innocence was overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The decision was affirmed with the modification that Tugbang is declared guilty under Article 315, par. 2(d).