G.R. No. 191622 . June 06, 2018
ILUMINADA BATAC, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Iluminada Batac was convicted of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution established that on November 8, 1998, Batac, accompanied by Erlinda Cabardo, went to the store of private complainant Roger Frias inside the Malasiqui public market. Batac presented fourteen post-dated checks totaling P103,500.00, drawn against her account with Prime Bank, Calasiao Branch. She assured Frias that the checks were funded, inducing him to purchase them at a rediscounted rate of five percent. Batac signed the checks in Frias’s presence. Upon presentment on their respective due dates, all checks were dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason “Account Closed.” Despite demands, Batac failed to make good the checks.
Batac denied the allegations, claiming it was Erlinda Cabardo who issued and delivered the checks to Frias. She asserted she never transacted with Frias and argued that the absence of a discounted amount from the claimed proceeds cast doubt on the alleged rediscounting transaction. She contended that if liable at all, it should only be for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law), not estafa. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found her guilty, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction with modification on the penalty. Batac’s contention that she did not issue the checks raised a factual issue, which is generally not reviewable in a Rule 45 petition limited to questions of law. The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from the factual findings of the lower courts, which were supported by evidence. The elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(d) were proven: (1) Batac post-dated or issued a check; (2) at the time of issuance, she knew she had insufficient funds in the bank; (3) the check was issued to apply on account or for value; and (4) the check was dishonored, causing damage and prejudice.
The Court clarified that for this type of estafa, the law punishes the act of issuing a worthless check as a means of defrauding another. The deceit lies in the issuer’s knowledge of the insufficiency of funds at the time the check is issued, coupled with the false pretense or fraudulent representation that the check is good. Batac’s own admission during trial that she knew her account was closed when she issued the checks conclusively established her fraudulent intent. Her liability is distinct from a violation of B.P. Blg. 22, which punishes the mere act of issuing a bouncing check. The penalty was recomputed under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, applying the penalty for estafa involving amounts over P22,000.00. The monetary award shall earn legal interest at 6% per annum from finality until full payment.