GR 150926; (March, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150926 . March 6, 2006
ANITA CHUA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Anita Chua was convicted of two counts of estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code. The facts, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, established that private complainant Araceli Estigoy, engaged in the buy-and-sell of imported goods, supplied merchandise to Chua on two occasions in 1982. In payment, Chua issued sets of postdated checks totaling P28,673.93 and P22,175.00. Upon their respective due dates, all checks were dishonored by the drawee bank for the reasons “drawn against insufficient funds” and/or “account closed.” Despite notice and demands, Chua failed to make good on the checks.
Chua admitted issuing the checks but interposed the defense that they were issued merely as collateral or by way of accommodation for Estigoy, and that she had already paid for the goods in cash. She argued that her liability was purely civil, involving only an accounting and liquidation of obligations.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for estafa.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. Procedurally, the petition raised purely factual questions—the existence of intent to defraud, the alleged lack of damage to the complainant, and the nature of the transactions—which are not reviewable in a petition for review under Rule 45. Factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion.
On the merits, the Court upheld the factual conclusions of the lower courts rejecting Chua’s defense. The amounts of the checks, including specific centavo values (e.g., P5,973.93), indicated they were issued as direct payment for the received goods, not as mere collateral. The claim of having paid in cash while simultaneously issuing a large aggregate amount in checks was deemed contrary to ordinary business practice and human experience. As an experienced businesswoman, Chua could not have been unaware of the criminal liability attendant to issuing unfunded checks. All elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(d)—(1) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation, (2) insufficiency of funds to cover the check, and (3) damage to the payee—were sufficiently proven. The penalty imposed by the CA was affirmed.