G.R. No. 146211 , August 6, 2002
MANUEL NAGRAMPA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Manuel Nagrampa was convicted for estafa (Criminal Case No. Q-90-15797) and for two counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) (Criminal Cases Nos. Q-90-15798 and Q-90-15799). On July 28, 1989, Nagrampa purchased a backhoe from Fedcor Trading Corporation (FEDCOR), represented by Federico Santander. He paid a down payment of P50,000 in cash and issued two postdated checks (Check No. 473477 for August 31, 1989, and Check No. 473478 for September 30, 1989) for P75,000 each, drawn against Security Bank and Trust Company, to cover the P150,000 balance. The equipment was delivered upon the assurance the checks were good. When presented for payment on February 22, 1990, the checks were dishonored because Nagrampa’s account had been closed since May 1985. A demand letter was sent on March 19, 1990, but Nagrampa failed to pay. At trial, Nagrampa claimed the backhoe broke down shortly after delivery and was returned to Ronnie Bote (son of FEDCOR’s sales agent, Corseno Bote) for repair, and that the checks were to be replaced with cash if the equipment was in good condition. He presented a letter dated October 3, 1989, with Ronnie Bote’s signature, to evidence the return. He also admitted paying P15,000 during the pendency of the case. The prosecution presented Santander, who denied the equipment was returned and stated Ronnie Bote was not an employee but a sales agent with no authority to receive returns, and Felix Mirano, a bank signature verifier, who confirmed the account was closed in 1985. The trial court found Nagrampa guilty of two counts of B.P. Blg. 22 and, later, upon remand from the Court of Appeals, also found him guilty of estafa. The Court of Appeals affirmed both convictions.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner is guilty of estafa.
2. Whether petitioner is guilty of two counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
3. Whether, if convicted under B.P. Blg. 22, the penalty should be modified to a fine only based on retroactive application of favorable jurisprudence.

RULING

1. On Estafa: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code are present: (a) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation; (b) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (c) damage to the payee. Nagrampa issued the checks knowing his account was closed, and FEDCOR suffered damage as it was not paid the P150,000 balance. His defense of returning the equipment was unsubstantiated; Ronnie Bote was not proven to be FEDCOR’s authorized agent to receive returns. The payment of P15,000 during trial did not extinguish criminal liability but could be deducted from the civil liability. The penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to twenty-eight years, four months and one day of reclusion perpetua as maximum.
2. On B.P. Blg. 22 Violations: The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. The elements are: (a) making, drawing, and issuing a check; (b) knowledge of insufficient funds; and (c) subsequent dishonor. Nagrampa knew his account was closed when he issued the checks. His argument that FEDCOR’s presentation of the checks beyond 90 days from issue absolves him is without merit; the law does not require presentment within 90 days for the offense to be committed. The dishonor was certain regardless of presentment date due to the closed account. The penalty for each count was modified to one year of imprisonment.
3. On Penalty Modification: The Supreme Court did not apply the rulings in Vaca v. Court of Appeals and Lim v. People (which allow imposition of fine only) retroactively in his favor. The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from the penalty of imprisonment, considering the facts, including his knowledge of the closed account and the damage caused.
The dispositive portion affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modifications: (1) imprisonment of one year for each B.P. Blg. 22 count; (2) indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to twenty-eight years, four months and one day of reclusion perpetua as maximum for estafa; and (3) payment to FEDCOR of P135,000 (P150,000 less P15,000 paid) with legal interest from October 9, 1990.