G.R. No. 163662, February 25, 2015
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Julie Grace K. Villanueva, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Julie Grace K. Villanueva was charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that on or about August 16, 1994, in Makati City, Villanueva, by means of deceit and false pretenses, issued several PNB checks as payment for various jewelries purchased from complainant Loreto Madarang. Villanueva knew at the time of issue that the checks had no sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank, and the checks were dishonored for reasons “account closed” or “stopped payment” or for insufficiency of funds. Despite demands, she failed to cover the checks, causing damage to Madarang.
The prosecution’s version established that in August 1994, Madarang, engaged in selling jewelry, met Villanueva and sold her five sets of jewelry worth ₱1,010,000. Villanueva issued nine PNB checks, eight of which were postdated, and signed a receipt for the transaction. Only two checks were honored; the remaining seven were dishonored for “Account Closed” or “Drawn Against Insufficient Funds.” Madarang attempted to contact Villanueva but was barred by security guards and sent demand letters to no avail.
The defense version claimed Villanueva met Madarang three times. She alleged that on the last meeting on August 16, 1994, she issued a second set of postdated checks as a guarantee under an agreement that they were not to be deposited until she advised Madarang of sufficient funds. She insisted she did not receive any notice of dishonor.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Villanueva of estafa and sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty of 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 20 years, and ordered her to pay Madarang ₱995,000 plus 12% interest per annum from the filing of the information. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The CA held the proper penalty was an indeterminate sentence of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum, to reclusion temporal in its maximum period, plus one year for each additional ₱10,000 of the fraud, but not exceeding 30 years (termed reclusion perpetua in this context). The CA also affirmed the imposition of 12% interest.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of Julie Grace K. Villanueva for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code and properly modified the penalty and interest imposed.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification regarding the imposition of interest. The Court held that the CA correctly affirmed Villanueva’s conviction based on the elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d). The issuance of the checks, which were subsequently dishonored, constituted deceit and false pretense, and Villanueva failed to make good the checks despite demand.
Regarding the penalty, the Supreme Court sustained the CA’s application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law as outlined in People v. Hernando. The proper indeterminate sentence was with a minimum within the range of prision mayor (the penalty next lower to reclusion temporal) and a maximum taken from the maximum period of reclusion temporal, plus one year for each additional ₱10,000 of the fraud (exceeding ₱22,000), but not exceeding 30 years (termed reclusion perpetua in this instance).
Concerning the interest, the Court modified the CA’s ruling in conformity with Nacar v. Gallery Frames. The amount of ₱995,000 shall earn interest at 12% per annum from the filing of the information on September 4, 1995 until June 30, 2013, and interest at 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until its full satisfaction.