G.R. Nos. 101127-31 November 18, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Cresencia C. Reyes, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Cresencia C. Reyes was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Manila of estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) under five consolidated informations. Complainant Lorie Garcia, through a business acquaintance, agreed to sell rice to Reyes on the condition that Reyes would first make a purchase order, pay 50% of the cost upon delivery, and issue a postdated check for the balance. On April 4, 1986, Garcia delivered 100 sacks of rice, for which Reyes issued two checks. On April 9, 1986, Garcia delivered 98 more sacks, for which Reyes issued another two checks. Later that same day, Reyes placed an order for 200 sacks and then requested an additional 200 sacks during delivery, resulting in a total delivery of 400 sacks (plus 2 more to complete the first order). For this, Reyes issued two more checks. All checks were drawn against the Bank of the Philippine Islands, España Branch. Of the six checks issued, only three were honored. The other three were dishonored due to “insufficient funds.” Despite Garcia’s notification and repeated demands, Reyes failed to make good on these checks. The criminal cases involved three checks: BPI Check No. 308202 for P15,750.00, BPI Check No. 308223 for P14,210.00, and BPI Check No. 308226 for P66,330.00, with corresponding charges for estafa and BP 22 violations. After the prosecution rested, Reyes did not file a demurrer to evidence and instead submitted a waiver of appearance. The trial court convicted her and imposed penalties including imprisonment, fines, and indemnification. Reyes appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in convicting Reyes of estafa and violation of BP 22 when the checks were allegedly issued in a credit transaction as a guarantee for payment of a civil obligation.
2. Whether the trial court erred in convicting Reyes of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code when there was allegedly no deceit employed in the issuance of the checks.
3. Whether the trial court erred in holding that there was sufficient evidence to justify conviction for estafa and violation of BP 22.
4. Whether the trial court erred in convicting Reyes of estafa for issuing a bad check when it was allegedly issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision and denied the appeal.
1. On the BP 22 charges: The Court held that BP 22 applies even if the dishonored checks were issued as a deposit or guaranty, not as actual payment. The law makes the mere act of issuing a worthless check a malum prohibitum, and no distinction is made based on the purpose of issuance. The gravamen of the offense is the act of making and issuing a worthless check that is dishonored upon presentment. Citing Que v. People, the Court ruled that criminal liability attaches regardless of whether the check was issued in payment or as a guarantee.
2. On the estafa charges: The Court held that to constitute estafa under Article 315(2)(d), the act of issuing a check must be the efficient cause of defraudation, inducing the offended party to part with money or property. The evidence established that Garcia was initially unwilling to deal with Reyes but was persuaded when Reyes issued checks for the first delivery. The checks were issued as consideration for each shipment of rice received, not in payment of a pre-existing obligation. Therefore, the elements of estafa were present.
3. On sufficiency of evidence: The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, which was unrebutted, overwhelming and sufficient to support conviction for both offenses.
4. On double jeopardy: The Court reaffirmed that prosecution for both estafa and BP 22 for the same act does not constitute double jeopardy because the elements of the offenses are different. Prosecution for the same act is not prohibited; what is forbidden is prosecution for the same offense.
The Court noted Reyes’s physical handicap but emphasized that she used it to deceive Garcia, forfeiting any sympathy. The challenged decision was affirmed.