People of the Philippines v. Firaza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Henry Samar, Jr. sold a parcel of land to Alfonso Firaza for ₱750,000.00. The payment terms included a ₱85,000.00 down payment and the balance payable through postdated checks. One of these checks, PNB Check No. 395532-S dated August 30, 1994, for ₱100,000.00, was dishonored by the bank due to "account closed." Petitioner Firaza subdivided and sold portions of the land but failed to pay the value of the dishonored check despite demands. Procedural History: The private complainant charged petitioner with estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted petitioner and sentenced him to imprisonment and to reimburse the private complainant. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction with modification on the penalty. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner assailed his conviction for estafa, arguing that no deceit was committed as the private complainant allegedly knew the checks were not funded and were issued merely as a guaranty. Petitioner later filed a motion arguing full settlement of the obligation and presented an affidavit of desistance from the private complainant.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner is guilty of estafa under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, and whether the subsequent payment of the obligation and the affidavit of desistance from the private complainant absolve petitioner of criminal liability.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification on the penalty. Petitioner Alfonso Firaza was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to twenty-seven years of reclusion perpetua as maximum. The order for petitioner to pay the value of the check was deleted, as the Court found that the criminal liability had already been incurred.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of petitioner for estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and the effect of subsequent payment and affidavit of desistance: The Court held that all elements of estafa under Article 315(2(d)) 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 of sufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee. The evidence showed that petitioner issued PNB Check No. 395532-S to induce the private complainant to execute the deed of sale, thereby contracting the obligation simultaneously with the issuance of the check. It was undisputed that petitioner had insufficient funds, as his account balance was only ₱1,026.53 and the account was closed prior to the check's maturity date. The private complainant suffered damage as he transferred title to the property, which petitioner then subdivided and sold, without receiving payment for the dishonored check. The Court ruled that subsequent payment of the obligation does not extinguish criminal liability for estafa. Estafa is a public offense prosecuted by the State, and restitution only extinguishes civil liability pro tanto. Furthermore, an affidavit of desistance from the private complainant, especially when executed after conviction, is given scant consideration. The Court cited jurisprudence emphasizing that such affidavits are unreliable, can be easily secured, and should not be given probative value as they can make solemn trials a mockery. The affidavit in this case was executed almost eight years after the information was filed and five years after conviction, making it a last-minute attempt to save petitioner from punishment.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a postdated check in payment of an obligation, when the drawer has no sufficient funds and the check is subsequently dishonored, constitutes estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code. Subsequent payment or restitution does not extinguish criminal liability, and an affidavit of desistance from the private complainant, especially when executed after conviction, is generally given scant consideration.