People v. Dizon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Nita V. Dizon was charged with estafa under two informations and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) in four informations. The complainant, Susan Sandejas Gomez, a broker for Ayala Corporation, was introduced to the Dizon spouses who expressed interest in buying Ayala Alabang lots. Subsequently, the Dizon spouses, particularly Nita, requested loans from Gomez, citing a need for cash to purchase auto spare parts. Gomez, initially reluctant, was persuaded by Dizon's persistence and promises of attractive incentives (interest). On February 14, 1986, Gomez gave Dizon P200,000.00 in cash and a P50,000.00 cashier's check. In return, Dizon issued two blank checks signed by her, which Gomez filled up to P122,000.00 and P150,000.00, with the P22,000.00 difference representing the agreed incentive. On February 18, 1986, Gomez gave Dizon P180,000.00 in cash in exchange for two blank checks signed by Dizon, which Gomez filled up to P150,000.00 and P75,000.00. The P51,000.00 difference was the incentive. On February 20, 1986, Dizon requested that the checks not be encashed due to a failed collection, asking for a one-week deferment. Due to the EDSA Revolution and bank closures, further requests for deferment were made. On February 26, 1986, the Dizon spouses informed Gomez that Nita was a victim of a holdup and they could not fund the checks. They issued another blank check, authorizing Gomez to fill it up to cover their obligations with 10% weekly interest. Gomez deposited the four checks issued to her, but they were all dishonored for insufficient funds on March 5, 1986. Demand letters were sent, but the Dizon spouses failed to respond, leading to the filing of the cases. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati rendered a decision on January 16, 1991, finding the accused Nita Dizon guilty in all criminal cases and sentencing her to suffer imprisonment and to indemnify the complainant. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but increased the penalties for estafa to 30 years of reclusion perpetua. The CA decision was not entered. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Accused-appellant Nita V. Dizon submitted that the trial court and the Court of Appeals committed errors in finding that she received the amounts claimed by the complainant, in her conviction for estafa and BP 22, and in the increase of penalties by the CA. She argued that the transactions were usurious and thus she was not obligated to make good the checks, and that PD 818 was not applicable.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused-appellant received the total amount of P430,000.00 from the complainant. Whether the defense of usury is a valid ground to avoid liability on the checks issued. Whether the conviction for violation of Presidential Decree No. 818 was proper despite the information charging estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in increasing the penalties imposed by the trial court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, with modifications as to the penalties imposed by the Court of Appeals. The dispositive portion of the trial court's decision was amended to reflect the penalties of thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua for each of the estafa cases, and the indemnification amounts were maintained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the accused-appellant received the total amount of P430,000.00: The Court held that the findings of fact of the trial court, as adopted by the Court of Appeals, were fully supported by the evidence. The complainant's positive and categorical testimony regarding the amounts given was found credible. The Court reiterated the legal precept that the findings of fact of the trial court are accorded great respect by appellate courts and should not be disturbed unless there was an oversight of significant facts. The accused-appellant's argument that no one would lend such a huge amount without a receipt was deemed specious, as the issuance of checks in exchange for the money served as validation of the loans. The Court found no fact or circumstance that would militate against the correctness of the findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals. On the defense of usury: The Court ruled that the defense of usury was unavailing. Citing Section 1 of Central Bank Circular No. 905, Series of 1982, the Court explained that this circular expressly removed the interest ceilings prescribed by the Usury Law. Since the effectivity of this circular, usury has been legally non-existent, and interest rates can be charged as agreed upon by the lender and borrower. The Court also affirmed the Central Bank's authority to issue such circulars as part of its responsibility to administer the monetary and banking system. On the conviction for violation of PD 818: The Court found the contention that the Court of Appeals erred in convicting the accused for violation of PD 818 inconsequential. The Court clarified that PD 818 is merely an amendment to Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, specifically increasing the penalty for estafa defined under Article 315 2(d). Since the information specifically charged estafa under Article 315 2(d), there was no need to specify the particular statute penalizing the act. The Court also noted that the Rules of Court do not require the specific penal provision to be mentioned in the information for a valid conviction. On the increase of penalties by the Court of Appeals: The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in increasing the penalties for estafa to thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua. The Court found no error in the appellate court's modification of the trial court's sentence, as it was based on the evidence presented and the applicable laws. The Court's final dispositive portion incorporated this modification.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of checks, even in blank, serves as validation of the loan extended. The defense of usury is unavailing in light of Central Bank Circular No. 905, Series of 1982, which removed interest ceilings. The specific penal provision violated need not be stated in the information if the act charged is penalized under a specific article.