GR 158312; (November, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 158312 November 14, 2008
John Dy, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines and The Honorable Court of Appeals, respondents.
FACTS
Since 1990, petitioner John Dy, doing business as Dyna Marketing, was a distributor of W.L. Food Products (W.L. Foods) in Naga City. He would pay for stocks of snack foods in cash or check upon pick-up. On June 24, 1992, Dy’s driver picked up merchandise worth P106,579.60 from W.L. Foods’ branch office. The driver gave the checker, Mary Jane D. Maraca, a blank Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) Check No. 553602, postdated July 22, 1992, signed by Dy but without a specified amount. On July 1, 1992, the same driver obtained goods worth P226,794.36 and gave a blank FEBTC Check No. 553615, postdated July 31, 1992. The amounts were later filled in by Evelyn Ong, W.L. Foods’ accountant, based on the value of the goods. Both checks were dishonored upon presentment. FEBTC initially cited insufficiency of funds but later advised that Check No. 553602 was dishonored due to “stop payment order and drawn against uncollected deposit (DAUD).” Dy’s account had a balance that included a check deposit still clearing. When contacted by William Lim, owner of W.L. Foods, Dy explained he could not pay due to lack of funds. A demand letter was ignored. Dy was charged with two counts of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code and two counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. Blg. 22). The Regional Trial Court convicted him on all counts. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification of the penalties.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner John Dy is liable for estafa and for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
RULING
The Supreme Court found the petition partly meritorious. On the estafa charges, the Court ruled that all elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) were present: (1) Dy postdated the checks and issued them to W.L. Foods; (2) at the time of issuance, Dy knew he did not have sufficient funds to cover the checks; (3) Dy was thereby able to obtain the goods; and (4) W.L. Foods suffered damage. The Court rejected Dy’s defenses, noting that the checks were validly issued through his agent (the driver) and that the filling of the amounts by W.L. Foods’ accountant was based on the value of the goods delivered, which was within the scope of their business practice. The long-standing business relationship did not negate deceit, as the issuance of worthless checks constituted fraud.
On the B.P. Blg. 22 charges, the Court acquitted Dy. For a conviction under B.P. Blg. 22, the check must be made, drawn, and issued. The Court found that the checks were not completely drawn or issued by Dy because they were delivered blank as to the amount. The act of filling the amount was performed by W.L. Foods’ accountant without Dy’s participation or authority. Since the essential element of “making, drawing, and issuing” a check was not fully satisfied, Dy could not be held liable for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The Court modified the appellate court’s decision, affirming the conviction for two counts of estafa but acquitting Dy of the two counts of violating B.P. Blg. 22. The penalties for estafa were imposed in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law and P.D. No. 818, and Dy was ordered to indemnify W.L. Foods the total sum of P333,373.96.