G.R. No. 116962 July 7, 1997
MARIA SOCORRO CACA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Maria Socorro Caca was charged with estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for issuing a postdated check that was dishonored for being drawn against a closed account. The prosecution evidence established that on August 17, 1988, petitioner borrowed P250,000.00 from Nancy Lim Rile, secured by Check No. 201596 of the Security Bank and Trust Co. dated February 28, 1989. When petitioner failed to redeem the check, Rile deposited it, but it was dishonored. Despite demand letters, petitioner failed to settle the account. Petitioner denied the transaction, testifying that she never borrowed money from Rile, did not receive P250,000.00, and lacked the financial capacity to repay such an amount. She claimed the check was pre-signed, kept in her drawer as a bank teller, was lost, and somehow found its way to Rile, who allegedly filled in the entries. Defense witnesses included a security guard whose logbook indicated petitioner never left the bank building on August 17, 1988; petitioner’s sister, who testified to petitioner’s lack of financial ability; and an officemate who claimed they were both swindled by a certain Annie Pascua. The Regional Trial Court found petitioner guilty only of violation of BP 22, sentencing her to six months imprisonment and ordering her to pay Rile P250,000.00 with interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in toto.

ISSUE

Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in their appreciation of evidence, particularly in giving credence to the prosecution’s evidence over the petitioner’s denial and defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that there was no compelling reason to disturb the findings of the trial court, as the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that the court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts of weight and substance. The Court found the record devoid of any motive for Rile to falsely impute a loan to petitioner. It rejected petitioner’s theory that her pre-signed check was stolen, noting she took no action against the alleged thief and, as a bank teller, was fully aware of the consequences of issuing a pre-signed blank check. The affirmative declaration of Rile was held to prevail over the bare denial of petitioner. The Court also agreed with the trial court that financial incapacity is not a valid defense to claim one could not have borrowed money, as people borrow due to financial problems.