People v. Dy y Abenis
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Leonora Dy y Abenis (appellant) was charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code for defrauding Purita Comandante through the issuance of postdated checks totaling P55,000.00 in Criminal Case No. Q-8078, and P67,000.00 in Criminal Case No. Q-8079, with Elizabeth Salen y Goong (at large) in the latter case. The transactions involved the purchase of jewelry by the accused from the complainant between May 17 to May 19, 1977. All issued checks were dishonored by the drawee banks due to insufficient funds or no arrangement. The accused failed to redeem the checks or return the jewelry despite demands. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Rizal found the appellant guilty in both cases and sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty and to indemnify the complainant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties to straight penalties of 23 years of reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case No. Q-8078 and 21 years of reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case No. Q-8079, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 818. The Court of Appeals certified the cases to the Supreme Court for final determination due to the imposable penalty of reclusion perpetua. The Petition: The appellant contended that the sale of jewelry was void as the complainant was not the owner, and the checks were merely security. The defense argued that no deceit was committed and the appellant was under no obligation to pay.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant is guilty of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. Whether ownership of the jewelry is a necessary element for the crime of Estafa. Whether the postdated checks were issued as payment or as mere security/guaranty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Leonora Dy y Abenis for the crime of Estafa. The Court sentenced her to suffer 23 years of reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case G.R. No. L-54912 (Q-8078) and 21 years of reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case G.R. No. L-54913 (Q-8079), with accessory penalties, and to indemnify Purita Comandante in the amounts of P55,000.00 and P32,000.00, respectively, and to pay the costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the appellant for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code: The Court held that all the elements of Estafa were present. These elements are: (1) the postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) the lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee thereof. The facts showed that the appellant issued postdated checks to Purita Comandante in payment for jewelry. These checks were dishonored by the banks for insufficient funds or no arrangement, causing damage to the complainant. The appellant's own extrajudicial statement and testimony confirmed that the checks were given in payment for the jewelry. On whether ownership of the jewelry is a necessary element for the crime of Estafa: The Court ruled that ownership is not a necessary element of Estafa. The law, under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, punishes defrauding "another," not necessarily the "owner." The crucial factor is that the complainant suffered damage or was deprived of a right, interest, or property by deceitful means. In this case, Purita Comandante had an interest in the jewelry, whether as owner or as an agent for the true owner, and she suffered prejudice when the checks bounced. The Court cited previous jurisprudence, including People vs. Yu Chai Ho, to support the principle that the victim of the fraud need not be the owner of the goods. On whether the postdated checks were issued as payment or as mere security/guaranty: The Court found no merit in the defense's contention that the checks were merely intended as security or guaranty. The appellant's own admissions, both in her extrajudicial statement (Exhibit "N") and her direct testimony, indicated that the checks were issued "in payment" for the pieces of jewelry received. Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding the transactions, including the agreement to meet and the issuance of receipts, all point towards a sale transaction where the checks were intended as the mode of payment. The defense's claim that the checks were for security was contradicted by the appellant's own statements and the nature of the transaction.
Main Doctrine
The elements of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code 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 thereof. Ownership of the property subject of the transaction is not a necessary element for Estafa.