G.R. No. 223998. March 5, 2018. AMANDO JUAQUICO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS

Petitioner Amando Juaquico was convicted of Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code by the Regional Trial Court, a conviction affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The prosecution established that in 1991, Juaquico, a long-time customer and godson of private complainant Robert Chan, endorsed ten checks totaling ₱329,000, issued by a Korean client named Ho Myong Ham, to Chan in exchange for cash. Upon their respective maturity dates, all checks were dishonored by the drawee bank due to insufficient funds. Despite a demand letter, Juaquico failed to make good the amount, leading Chan to file a criminal complaint.
For his defense, Juaquico asserted that he was engaged in the embroidery business and had been purchasing materials from Chan since 1977. He explained that the subject checks were not exchanged for cash but were instead endorsed to Chan as payment for his purchases, constituting a standard practice in their long-standing business relationship. He claimed he received these checks from his customer, Ham, and upon learning they were dishonored, he attempted but failed to locate her as she had already left the country.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner Amando Juaquico is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings and acquitted Juaquico. For conviction under Article 315(2)(d), the prosecution must prove: (1) the postdating or issuance of a check for a contemporaneous obligation; (2) lack or insufficiency of funds; and (3) the payee’s lack of knowledge of the insufficiency, with the accused having guilty knowledge of this fact. The Court emphasized that the third element—scienter or deceit—is essential.
The prosecution failed to prove that Juaquico had guilty knowledge of the insufficiency of funds at the time he endorsed the checks. The evidence showed he received the checks from his customer in the ordinary course of business and endorsed them under a long-established practice with Chan. Their 16-year business relationship, wherein Chan routinely accepted checks from Juaquico’s clients even without knowing them, negated any deceit. Chan accepted the checks based on their customary procedure, not because of any false pretenses by Juaquico. Thus, the element of deceit was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
However, acquittal does not extinguish civil liability. The Court found Juaquico civilly liable to Chan for ₱329,000, representing the actual damage incurred, plus legal interest at 12% per annum from the date of demand (October 17, 1991) until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013, until full satisfaction.