G.R. No. L-45490, L-45711, L-42971 November 20, 1978
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE SABIO, SR., City Judge of Cagayan de Oro and RANULFO M. SALAZAR, respondents. TAN TAO LIAP, alias JIMMY TAN, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. DAYLINDA A. LAGUA, petitioner, vs. HON. VICENTE M. CUSI, JR., as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao City, THE CITY FISCAL OF DAVAO, GEMPESAW HARDWARE and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
These consolidated petitions involve the common legal issue of whether issuing a postdated check that is later dishonored for insufficiency of funds, when issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation, constitutes estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code. In G.R. No. L-45490, respondent Ranulfo Salazar issued a postdated check for P1,500 to pay a pre-existing rental obligation. The check was dishonored. The City Court of Cagayan de Oro granted his motion to quash the estafa information, ruling no crime was committed. In G.R. No. L-45711, petitioner Tan Tao Liap issued three postdated checks to pay a pre-existing loan. The first check was honored, but he informed the creditor not to deposit the remaining two due to business reverses. The creditor deposited one anyway, and it was dishonored. Tan was convicted of estafa, affirmed by the Court of Appeals. In G.R. No. L-42971, petitioner Daylinda Lagua issued a postdated check for a pre-existing hardware debt, which was dishonored. The Court of First Instance denied her motion to quash the estafa information.
ISSUE
Whether the issuance of a postdated check, subsequently dishonored for insufficiency of funds, in payment of a pre-existing obligation constitutes estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that such issuance does not constitute estafa. The legal logic is anchored on the element of deceit required for estafa. Article 315(2)(d) penalizes the act of issuing a check with insufficient funds when the check is issued to induce the payee to part with something of value simultaneously with or after the issuance. When a check is issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation, the transaction that gave rise to the obligation is already completed. The payee does not part with any property or extend any credit on the faith of the check itself. The deceit, if any, relates to the non-payment of the debt, which is a purely civil matter. The check merely functions as a substitute for money or a evidence of debt, not as an inducement for a contemporaneous exchange. The Court emphasized that to hold otherwise would improperly convert a civil collection remedy into a criminal prosecution, using the penal law as a tool for debt collection. The ruling in L-45490 and L-42971 is affirmed, granting the motions to quash. The decision in L-45711 is reversed, and Tan Tao Liap is acquitted.
