People v. Tan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: New Durawood Company, represented by its branch manager Wilson Gaw, sold construction materials to Mario Myrno Tan, owner of Hocson Trading. As was their practice, Tan ordered materials, the company computed the total amount, Tan issued a post-dated check for payment, and the materials were delivered later. Tan issued Security Bank and Trust Company (SBTC) Check No. 293232, post-dated October 1, 1990, for P254,037.00, representing payment for construction materials ordered in July or August 1990. The check was dishonored for being drawn against insufficient funds. Gaw testified that the materials were received by Ernie Conwi, Nards Gabatin, and an unidentified person, none of whom were authorized by Tan. Furthermore, invoices for some of the materials bore stamps indicating payment by MBTC checks, not by Tan. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 74, found appellant Mario Myrno Tan guilty of estafa under Article 315 (2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The case is now on appeal before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in finding that the post-dated check was issued for consideration, in not finding that the goods were paid for by checks belonging to another person, and in holding that the evidence established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction of the appellant for estafa beyond reasonable doubt. Whether all the elements of estafa under Article 315 (2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code have been proven. Whether there was consideration for the issuance of the bouncing check. Whether the goods covered by the sales invoices were delivered to and received by the appellant or his authorized representatives. Whether the appellant sustained damage by reason of the issuance of his check.
Ruling
The Supreme Court acquitted appellant Mario Myrno Tan of the charge of estafa. He was ordered immediately released from confinement unless held for some other legal cause.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction for estafa: The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed estafa. The Court found that the trial court erred in finding that the appellant's check was issued for consideration. For estafa under Article 315 (2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, damage and deceit are essential elements that must be established with satisfactory proof. The false pretense or fraudulent act must occur prior to or simultaneously with the issuance of the bad check. In this case, the prosecution did not sufficiently prove that the appellant or his representatives received the merchandise ordered. Without proof of delivery and receipt of the goods, there was no consideration for the check issued by the appellant, and consequently, no damage was sustained by the payee. The evidence presented, including the invoices and delivery receipts signed by unauthorized individuals, did not incriminate the appellant. On the elements of estafa under Article 315 (2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code: The Court reiterated that the elements are: (1) postdating or issuing 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. The Court found that while the check was issued and it was dishonored for insufficient funds, the crucial element of damage to the payee was not established because the transaction lacked consideration. The transaction was a contract of sale, which is reciprocal. The seller obligates itself to deliver the materials, and the buyer obligates himself to pay. Actual delivery requires placing the thing sold in the control and possession of the buyer or his agent. This was not proven. On whether there was consideration for the issuance of the bouncing check: The Court found no ample proof that the appellant or his representatives received the merchandise ordered. The witness Gaw admitted that the materials were received by individuals not authorized by the appellant, and it was not shown that these individuals turned over the merchandise to the appellant. The delivery receipts were signed by persons not known to be authorized representatives of the appellant, and the materials were delivered to an address that contravened the standing arrangement between the parties. This lack of proof of delivery meant there was no consideration for the check. On whether the goods covered by the sales invoices were delivered to and received by the appellant or his authorized representatives: The Court found that the prosecution failed to present ample proof of delivery and receipt. The delivery receipts were signed by individuals not proven to be authorized representatives of the appellant. Furthermore, the invoices themselves indicated that some of the materials were paid for by checks from MBTC, a bank with which the appellant had no account, suggesting that the payment was not made by the appellant and that the goods might not have been intended for him or were paid for by another party. On whether the appellant sustained damage by reason of the issuance of his check: Since the Court found that there was no consideration for the check due to the lack of proof of delivery of the goods, it concluded that no damage was sustained by the private complainant. The appellant had no obligation to pay or make good the SBTC check because he did not receive anything of value from the private complainant. Therefore, the element of damage, which is essential for estafa, was not met.
Main Doctrine
The elements of estafa under Article 315 (2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) postdating or issuing 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. Damage and deceit are essential elements of the offense and must be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. The false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with the issuance of the bad check. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that the goods were delivered to the accused or his authorized representative, thus, there was no consideration for the check and no damage was sustained by the payee.