G.R. No. 213640. April 12, 2023
Lucia Manuel y Cadiz, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Lucia Manuel y Cadiz was charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that in November 2005, in San Rafael, Bulacan, with intent to gain and by means of false pretenses, she issued ten (10) postdated checks drawn against her account with the Philippine National Bank, Sta. Maria Branch, as payment for her obligation for purchases of live chickens from Ebot’s Farm, knowing at the time of issue that she had no sufficient funds. Upon presentment, the checks were dishonored for reason “Account Closed,” despite demands, causing damage to complainant Flordeliza Uy in the total amount of P809,606.00.
The prosecution presented witnesses Nemesio Artates (booker of Ebot’s Farm), Elizabeth De Leon (Farm Manager), and Felicidad Bernardo (PNB Branch Manager). Their testimonies established that petitioner placed orders for live chickens, which were delivered by her husband or nephew, who also delivered the check payments. The checks, made payable to Flordeliza Uy, were dishonored. Bernardo confirmed the checks bore petitioner’s handwriting for the date and signature, but not for the payee’s name and amount.
The defense presented petitioner as sole witness. She admitted issuing blank checks (filled only with date and her signature) as payment/guarantee for chickens purchased from Ebot’s Farm, which she claimed was owned by Alex Uson, not Flordeliza Uy. She denied filling in Uy’s name as payee and claimed she did not transact with Uy. She admitted knowing the checks would not be funded on time and approached Uson to renegotiate payment. She highlighted the prosecution’s failure to present Uy as a witness.
The Regional Trial Court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced her to thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code despite the prosecution’s failure to present the private complainant, Flordeliza Uy, as a witness.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the failure to present the private complainant as a witness is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. The elements of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) were sufficiently proven by the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses and evidence on record.
The elements of the crime are: (1) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee. All elements were established: (1) Petitioner issued the checks as payment for live chickens received; (2) The PNB Branch Manager testified the account was closed when the checks were negotiated, and petitioner admitted knowing the checks were unfunded; (3) Damage was proven by the dishonor of the checks and the resulting unpaid obligation. The testimony of the booker, Artates, who directly transacted with petitioner, sufficiently established the transaction and the damage to the farm’s owner.
The Court ruled that the private complainant is not an indispensable witness in the criminal case for estafa, as the crime is against public order and the State is the offended party. The interest of the private complainant is limited to civil liability. The prosecution can establish its case through other witnesses and evidence, which it did in this case. Petitioner’s defense of issuing blank checks did not negate her liability, as she admitted issuing them to secure the transactions and failed to make them good upon dishonor.