G.R. No. 156541 February 23, 2009
LUZ CAJIGAS and LARRY CAJIGAS, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners spouses Luz and Larry Cajigas were charged with two counts each of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 818. The charges stemmed from two transactions where they purchased assorted jewelries from private complainant Daisy Fuentes, paying with postdated checks that were subsequently dishonored for the reason “Account Closed.”
In Criminal Case No. RTC-1411, petitioners, on or about October 14, 1989, issued five postdated checks (three FEBTC and two UCPB checks) totaling ₱33,758.21 for jewelries. In Criminal Case No. RTC-1412, on or about September 2, 1989, they issued two postdated Allied Bank checks totaling ₱55,000 for jewelries. All checks were dishonored. Bank officials testified that Luz’s accounts with UCPB, FEBTC, and Allied Bank were all closed before or around the time the checks were issued. Daisy Fuentes testified that petitioners assured her the checks were funded, and she only filed the cases after locating petitioners in 1994. Luz Cajigas admitted issuing the checks but claimed it was part of a practice with Daisy involving purchase orders and pawn papers, and that a receipt for pawn papers was intended to replace the checks. Larry Cajigas denied any involvement, knowledge of the transactions, or issuing assurances.
The Regional Trial Court convicted both petitioners. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of petitioners for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. It acquitted petitioner Larry Cajigas based on reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove his conspiracy or active participation in the deceit. Larry did not sign the checks, make any representations to Daisy Fuentes about their sufficiency, and there was no evidence he induced the complainant. His mere presence and being the spouse of Luz were insufficient to establish criminal liability.
However, the Court affirmed the conviction of petitioner Luz Cajigas. All elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) were proven against her: (1) she postdated the checks and issued them to Daisy Fuentes; (2) at the time of issuance, she knew her bank accounts were closed or insufficiently funded; (3) the fact of insufficiency was not disclosed to Fuentes, who was instead assured the checks were good; (4) due to this deceit, Fuentes delivered the jewelries; and (5) Fuentes suffered damage. Luz’s defense of a replacement receipt was rejected as the receipt only acknowledged receipt of pawn papers, not the substitution of the checks’ value. Her claim of a mere balance of ₱3,500 was also unsubstantiated.
The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals was correct. Applying P.D. 818, which prescribes a penalty one degree higher than that under Article 315, and considering the total amount defrauded (₱88,758.21) exceeded ₱22,000, the penalty is reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Luz Cajigas was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum. She was also ordered to indemnify Daisy Fuentes ₱88,758.21.