Lopez v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Jude Joby Lopez issued a postdated Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) Check No. 0859279 for P20,000.00 payable to Efren R. Ables on March 23, 1998, in exchange for value received. The check was intended to mature on April 30, 1998. Upon presentment for payment on May 27, 1998, the check was dishonored by the drawee bank due to the account being closed. Efren R. Ables sent a demand letter to petitioner after receiving notice of dishonor, but petitioner refused to pay. Procedural History: An Information for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 4885, was filed against petitioner. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 53, Sorsogon, Sorsogon, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to indemnify the private complainant P20,000.00 plus costs. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration, arguing the absence of deceit, was denied. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), reiterating the argument on lack of deceit and excessive penalty. The CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, contending that the CA erred in affirming the RTC decision convicting him of estafa, in not applying the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Law, and in not ruling on the excessive penalty imposed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the lower court convicting the accused of the crime of estafa. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not applying the provisions of the negotiable instruments law. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling on the excessive penalty imposed by the trial court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari for utter lack of merit and affirmed in toto the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court found petitioner Jude Joby Lopez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 4885, and affirmed the penalty imposed by the lower courts.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conviction for Estafa: The Court held that all the elements of estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code were present. The petitioner issued a postdated check in payment of an obligation, and at the time of issuance, he had no funds in the bank because his account was already closed. The appellate court found that the petitioner accomplished deceit when he led the complainant to believe the check was good, and the complainant was prejudiced and damaged by this fraudulent ploy. The Court clarified that the receipt of a written notice of dishonor is not an element of the offense; rather, it gives rise to a prima facie presumption of deceit if the drawer fails to cover the check within three days of receipt. However, in this case, the petitioner had actual notice of dishonor through a verbal notification from the complainant. Furthermore, even without formal notice, the petitioner could not have expected the drawee bank to honor the check since his account was closed even before the check was issued, making notice of dishonor unnecessary under Section 114(d) of the Negotiable Instruments Law. The petitioner's argument that the complainant knew about the lack of funds was unavailing, as issuing a check against a closed account inherently constitutes deceit, especially when the drawer fails to disclose this material fact. On the application of the Negotiable Instruments Law: The Court ruled that Section 114(d) of the Negotiable Instruments Law, which dispenses with notice of dishonor when the drawer has no right to expect the drawee to honor the check, was applicable. Since the petitioner's bank account was already closed prior to the issuance of the check, he had no right to expect or require the drawee bank to honor it. Therefore, he was not entitled to be given a notice of dishonor, and the absence of formal written notice did not absolve him of liability. The Court emphasized that the criminal liability stems from the deceit in issuing a bad check, not merely from the non-payment of a debt. On the penalty imposed: The Court found no merit in the petitioner's contention that the penalty was excessive. It applied Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 818, which amended Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code regarding penalties for estafa. For an amount of fraud over P12,000.00 but not exceeding P22,000.00, the penalty is reclusion temporal. Considering the P20,000.00 involved, this penalty range was correctly applied. The Court also correctly applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which mandates an indeterminate penalty. The maximum term is reclusion temporal, and the minimum term is within the range of the next lower penalty, prision mayor. Thus, the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum, as imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the CA, was proper.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a postdated check against a closed account constitutes estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as deceit is inherent in such an act, and notice of dishonor is not required when the drawer has no right to expect the drawee bank to honor the check.