Caca v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Maria Socorro Caca was charged with estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22). The prosecution established that Caca borrowed P50,000.00 from Nancy Lim Rile, secured by a postdated check, which was redeemed before its due date. Subsequently, Caca borrowed P125,000.00, also secured by a redeemed postdated check. On August 17, 1988, Caca borrowed P250,000.00, secured by Check No. 201596 dated February 28, 1989. When Caca failed to redeem this third check, Rile deposited it, but it was dishonored for being drawn against a closed account. Despite demands, Caca failed to settle the account. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 5, found petitioner guilty only of violation of BP 22, sentencing her to six months imprisonment and ordering her to pay Rile P250,000.00 with legal interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment in toto. The Petition: Petitioner questions the appreciation of evidence by the trial and appellate courts.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in appreciating the evidence against the petitioner, and whether the petitioner's defense of denial and lack of financial capacity to repay the loan is tenable. Whether the petitioner's theory that her pre-signed check was stolen is credible.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged error in appreciating evidence and the defense of denial and lack of financial capacity: The Court reiterated the established principle that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a showing that said court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance. The Court found no compelling reason to disturb the conclusions of the lower courts. It noted that the record was bereft of any motive for Rile to falsely impute the supposed imaginary loan to petitioner. The Court emphasized that denial is a self-serving negative defense that cannot be given greater weight than the declaration of a credible witness who testified on affirmative matters, citing People v. Carizo. The affirmative declaration of Rile prevailed over the bare denial of petitioner. The Court agreed with the trial court's conclusion that people are often forced to borrow money due to financial problems, and it is not a valid defense to claim that one could not have borrowed from another because of an alleged incapacity to pay the amount. This reasoning addresses the plausibility of the transaction itself, irrespective of the borrower's subsequent ability to repay. On the theory that the pre-signed check was stolen: The Court found the petitioner's theory that her pre-signed check was stolen and subsequently filled up by Rile to be untenable. The Court pointed out that petitioner even alleged a co-employee, Luana Sumalinog, took the check but failed to take any action or file a case against her for theft. Furthermore, petitioner admitted issuing pre-signed checks to Sumalinog in the past for her obligations. As a bank teller, petitioner was aware of the consequences of issuing a pre-signed blank check. The Court found this defense to be a weak attempt to evade liability.
Main Doctrine
The affirmative declaration of a credible witness prevails over a bare denial, especially when the denial is self-serving and lacks substantiation. Furthermore, the inability to repay a loan does not negate the fact that the loan was incurred and a check issued as security was dishonored.