GR 154159; (March, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 154159 . March 31, 2005.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ALOMA REYES and TRICHIA MAE REYES (AT LARGE), accused. ALOMA REYES, Appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Aloma Reyes and her daughter were charged with estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged they conspired to defraud private complainant Jules-Berne Alabastro by issuing a postdated Allied Bank NOW check for ₱280,000.00, which was dishonored for reason “Account Closed.” The prosecution’s theory was that the check was issued for rediscounting, inducing Alabastro to part with his money based on representations that it was good. Alabastro testified he gave cash upon receiving the check. The defense, however, presented a different narrative. Appellant testified the check was issued as one of sixteen installment checks to pay a pre-existing loan obligation from 1996, not to obtain new value simultaneously. She claimed the account was already closed when the check was issued, and it was intended merely as evidence of the debt.
ISSUE
Whether the appellant is guilty of estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, which requires the check to be issued to obtain value simultaneously with its issuance, or if her liability is merely civil because the check was issued for a pre-existing obligation.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED appellant Aloma Reyes. The Court emphasized that for estafa under Article 315(2)(d) to prosper, the check must be issued as a means to obtain value or consideration at the time of its issuance. The check itself must be the inducement for the transaction. The evidence failed to establish this crucial element beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to overturn the constitutional presumption of innocence. Private complainant Alabastro’s testimony was deemed unreliable and uncorroborated, particularly regarding the source of the ₱280,000.00 and the exact nature of the transaction. His claim of rediscounting was not convincingly proven. In contrast, the appellant’s testimony that the check was issued for a pre-existing obligation introduced reasonable doubt. Since the check was issued merely as a form of payment for an obligation already incurred, and not as an inducement to part with something of value simultaneously, the crime of estafa was not committed. Her liability, if any, is purely civil. The case was remanded to the trial court for determination of civil liability.