G.R. No. 184053; August 31, 2011
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Virginia Baby P. Montaner, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Virginia Baby P. Montaner was charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on or about May 17, 1996, in San Pedro, Laguna, she defrauded Reynaldo Solis by issuing ten postdated Prudential Bank checks, each for ₱5,000.00 (totaling ₱50,000.00), in exchange for cash. She represented the checks were fully funded, but upon presentment on their due date (June 17, 1996), they were dishonored for reason “ACCOUNT CLOSED.” Despite demand, she failed to pay.
During trial, the prosecution presented complainant Reynaldo Solis, who testified that appellant issued the checks in his house in exchange for cash because she needed money, and told him to deposit them on their due date. The checks were dishonored. Ruel Allan Pajarito, Branch Cashier of Prudential Bank, confirmed the checks were dishonored because appellant’s account was already closed as of July 11, 1996, and the checks were returned on October 4, 1996.
The defense consisted solely of appellant’s denial. She claimed she did not issue the checks to Solis but instead lent signed blank checks (with date, amount, and payee left blank) to a certain Marlyn Galope, whom she told the checks were unfunded. She alleged she had no transaction with Solis and learned of the case only later from Galope. She also claimed no knowledge of the notice of dishonor.
The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of estafa. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the trial court erred in finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding appellant’s conviction.
The crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) requires: (1) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of issuance; (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee.
All elements were proven. First, Solis’s clear and categorical testimony established that appellant issued the ten postdated checks to him in his house in exchange for cash, creating an obligation. Second, the checks were dishonored due to “ACCOUNT CLOSED,” proving lack of sufficient funds. Third, Solis suffered damage as he was not paid the ₱50,000.00.
The Court rejected appellant’s defense. Her claim of lending blank checks to Galope was a bare denial, unsupported by evidence and uncorroborated by Galope’s testimony. Denial, if unsubstantiated, is a weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a credible witness. The failure to present Galope was fatal to her cause. The Court found no error in the lower courts’ findings and affirmed the penalty and order to indemnify Solis ₱50,000.00.