GR 221836; (August, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 221836. August 14, 2019.
ESTHER ABALOS Y PUROC, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Esther Abalos, introducing herself as “Vicenta Abalos,” accompanied by Christine Molina, offered two EastWest Bank checks for rediscounting to private complainant Elaine Sembrano in April 2011. Sembrano, assured the checks were good, gave Abalos ₱250,000.00 less 7% interest. The checks, signed by Abalos as “Vicenta,” were later dishonored. Despite a demand letter, Abalos failed to pay. The prosecution established that Abalos used false identification to misrepresent her identity and financial capacity.
Abalos denied the accusations, claiming the checks were issued merely as collateral for a loan, not for rediscounting. She asserted it was Molina who primarily transacted with Sembrano and that she only accompanied her. She received a portion of the loan amount from Molina after the transaction. The defense highlighted an alleged inconsistency in Sembrano’s statements regarding whether the checks were for rediscounting or collateral.
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.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(d) are: (1) a check is postdated or issued 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 present. The checks were issued to obtain immediate cash from Sembrano, not merely as collateral for a future loan. The subsequent dishonor for being drawn against a closed account constituted prima facie evidence of deceit.
The Court found the alleged inconsistency in Sembrano’s testimony inconsequential, as it did not detract from the core finding that Abalos employed deceit by misrepresenting her identity and issuing worthless checks to induce Sembrano to part with her money. The defense of the checks being mere collateral was unavailing, as the law penalizes the fraud attendant to the issuance of a worthless check, regardless of the underlying purpose. The penalty was adjusted pursuant to Republic Act No. 10951, imposing an indeterminate sentence of four months and twenty days of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years, eleven months, and ten days of prision correccional, as maximum. The award of actual damages with legal interest was sustained.