People v. Ramos-Andan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Anicia Ramos-Andan (petitioner) and Potenciana Nieto approached Elizabeth E. Calderon to buy her diamond ring. Elizabeth agreed, and Potenciana tendered three postdated checks. A receipt was signed by Digna G. Sevilla, Anicia Andan, and a witness, evidencing the transaction and the checks as full payment. Elizabeth required petitioner to endorse the checks, which she did. Upon deposit, the checks bounced due to "Account Closed." Elizabeth demanded payment from Potenciana, who refused. Procedural History: Elizabeth filed a Complaint for Estafa against petitioner and Potenciana. The Provincial Prosecutor filed an Information, and petitioner was arrested while Potenciana remained at large. Petitioner pleaded not guilty, claiming she signed as a witness and was not liable for the bounced checks. The RTC found petitioner guilty, imposing an indeterminate prison term and ordering her to indemnify Elizabeth. The RTC held that petitioner induced Elizabeth to accept the checks and endorsed them, thus she could not escape liability. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, increasing the maximum penalty and reducing the indemnity, noting that only one check's dishonor was proven. The Petition: Petitioner sought review, raising issues of whether her guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt and if she was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong. She argued that as she was not the drawer, she could not be held criminally liable.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution proved petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Whether petitioner is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the prosecution proved petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The Court held that petitioner cannot escape liability for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. While Potenciana was the drawer of the checks, petitioner directly and personally negotiated them, signed the receipt, handed the checks to Elizabeth, and endorsed them as payment for the ring. The Court cited Zagado v. Court of Appeals and People v. Isleta, emphasizing that even without issuing or endorsing the checks, a person can be held liable if they acted in concert with the drawer with common design and purpose, or if they had guilty knowledge that the drawer had no sufficient funds. The elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(d) were found to be present: (1) issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of issuance; (2) lack of or insufficiency of funds; and (3) the payee was not informed of the offender's lack of funds. The Court noted that petitioner failed to ascertain if Potenciana had sufficient funds and did not provide an adequate explanation for the "Account Closed" reason when the checks bounced, satisfying the element of deceit. On the issue of whether petitioner is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong: The Court ruled that this mitigating circumstance has no place in this case. The Court found that petitioner employed fraud, which led Elizabeth to part with her ring worth P73,000.00. The act of using bounced checks to acquire jewelry clearly indicates an intention to defraud, negating the claim of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong.
Main Doctrine
A person who directly negotiates bounced checks, signs the receipt evidencing the sale, and endorses the checks as payment for jewelry, even if not the drawer, can be held liable for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, especially when acting in concert with the drawer and failing to ascertain sufficient funds or provide adequate explanation for the dishonor.