People v. Batac
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Iluminada Batac and Erlinda Cabardo approached private complainant Roger L. Frias to have several post-dated checks, totaling P103,500.00, rediscounted. Batac assured Frias that the checks were funded. Frias agreed and purchased the checks at a 5% rediscounted rate. Upon presentation on their respective due dates, the checks were dishonored by the drawee bank, Prime Bank, for the reason "Account Closed." Despite repeated demands, Batac failed to make good the checks. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Batac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. Batac filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Batac argued that she should not be liable for estafa, claiming it was Erlinda who issued and delivered the checks and defrauded Frias. She also contended that her liability, if any, would only be for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. Blg. 22).
Issue(s)
Whether Batac's contention that Erlinda, not she, committed the crime raises a question of fact, thus binding the Supreme Court to the findings of the lower courts. Whether Batac is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, and the distinction between estafa and B.P. Blg. 22. Whether Batac's liability is limited to a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, including the applicable penalty and interest.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirmed the conviction for estafa, but modified the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals in light of Republic Act No. 10951. The Court held Batac guilty of estafa and ordered her to pay Roger L. Frias the amount of P103,500.00 with legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of factual findings: The Court ruled that Batac's contention that Erlinda, not she, committed the crime raises a question of fact. Since the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court generally pertains to questions of law, and Batac failed to substantiate any exceptions, the factual findings of the RTC and CA, which were consistent, were binding upon the Supreme Court. The positive identification of Batac by Frias, corroborated by his sister Ivy Luna Frias, destroyed Batac's defense of denial. On the guilt for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the RPC and the distinction between estafa and B.P. Blg. 22: The Court found that all the elements of estafa were sufficiently proven. Batac issued postdated checks in payment for an obligation (rediscounting) at a time when she had insufficient funds, admitting to having only a little over one thousand pesos in her account. Her representation that the checks were funded, coupled with her signing the checks in Frias' presence, served as the inducement for Frias to part with his money. The subsequent dishonor of the checks and her failure to make good the payment within the grace period established the deceit and damage required for estafa. The Court reiterated that estafa under Article 315(2)(d) and violation of B.P. Blg. 22 are distinct offenses. While both arise from the issuance of a dishonored check, estafa requires deceit and damage, which are not essential elements for B.P. Blg. 22. Furthermore, estafa under Article 315(2)(d) is negated by the issuance of a check for a pre-existing obligation, whereas B.P. Blg. 22 punishes the mere issuance of a bouncing check regardless of the nature of the obligation. Estafa is a crime against property, while B.P. Blg. 22 is considered a crime against public interest. On the penalty and interest: The Court noted that the penalty for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) was amended by R.A. No. 10951. Considering the amount of P103,500.00 involved, the proper imposable penalty is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term was fixed at 4 months of arresto mayor, and the maximum term at 1 year and 8 months of prision correccional. The Court modified the interest rate imposed by the CA, stating that the monetary award shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the resolution until fully paid.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a postdated check without sufficient funds, when used as the efficient cause to induce another to part with money or property, constitutes estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, distinct from the offense under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.