G.R. No. 126670 December 2, 1999
ERNESTO T. PACHECO and VIRGINIA O. PACHECO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner spouses, engaged in construction, obtained several loans from Luz Vicencio due to financial difficulties. For each loan, they were required to issue undated checks as mere evidence of indebtedness, with explicit assurances from Vicencio that these checks would not be presented for encashment, as petitioners had informed her their account was unfunded. The checks were issued under this condition, with some even being signed by the husband as a formality. Petitioners paid off most of the loans. For the unpaid balance, Vicencio later went to petitioners’ residence and persuaded Virginia to date two of the previously undated checks, despite being reminded the account was already closed. The checks were subsequently presented and dishonored.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners are guilty of estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code for issuing checks that were later dishonored.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court acquitted petitioners. For estafa under Article 315(2)(d) to exist, the check must be issued as a means of defrauding another, typically in payment of an obligation or to secure some benefit. Here, the checks were not issued for these purposes. They were issued solely as evidence of the loan, with a clear understanding they would not be encashed, a condition known and insisted upon by the creditor. The subsequent dating of the checks at the creditor’s instance, after the account was closed, did not transform the original transaction into one where the checks were issued in payment. The element of deceit or fraud on the part of the drawers at the time of issuance was absent. The creditor’s act of presenting the checks for payment violated the original agreement and constituted a misuse of the instruments. The criminal liability for estafa cannot be sustained where the checks were not issued as a means of defraudation.