People v. Santiago
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On March 13, 1929, Gervasio Santiago, pretending to be an agent of Radium Ore Ravigator Co., offered to sell a filter to Jesus Pereira. Santiago convinced Pereira to buy the filter by stating he needed to sell one more to win a P500 prize, and the filter was worth P40. Pereira, having only P20, paid this as the first installment via a check payable to 'cash'. Santiago issued a receipt and promised to deliver the filter that same day. Santiago returned later asking for a recommendation, and again promised to deliver the filter that afternoon. When Santiago failed to appear, Pereira became suspicious and inquired with the Radium Ore Ravigator Company, discovering no employee named R. R. Revilla. Pereira then reported the incident to the police and identified Santiago from photographs. Pereira notified the bank to suspend payment on the check, which was never presented. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila convicted Gervasio Santiago of estafa and sentenced him to two years, four months, and one day of presidio correccional, with an additional twenty-one years' imprisonment as an habitual criminal. The Petition: The appellant assigned as errors the conviction for estafa based on the prosecution's proofs and the failure to acquit him.
Issue(s)
Whether the issuance of a check payable to 'cash' that was not presented for payment constitutes estafa. Whether the accused is an habitual criminal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, with a modification to the principal penalty. The appellant was sentenced to one year and one day of presidio correccional as the principal penalty, plus twenty-one years' imprisonment as an habitual criminal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of estafa despite the uncashed check: The Court held that the issuance of a check payable to 'cash' constitutes temporary prejudice sufficient to establish estafa. The check, being payable to 'cash,' was negotiable. While the defendant possessed the check, the offended party could not dispose of the amount for which it was made out, causing at least temporary prejudice. This principle was supported by previous rulings in U. S. vs. Goyenechea and U.S. vs. Malong. The Court found that the facts proved beyond a reasonable doubt established the crime of estafa under Article 535, number 1, and penalized under Article 534, number 1, of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 3244. The penalty was determined to be one year and one day of presidio correccional, considering the defendant's prior convictions. On the issue of habitual criminality: The Court found that the defendant had been previously convicted of estafa nine times, with his last sentence completed in April 1927. This established him as an habitual criminal under section 1, subsection (d) of Act No. 3397, warranting an additional penalty of twenty-one years' imprisonment.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a check payable to 'cash' constitutes temporary prejudice sufficient to establish estafa, even if the check is not presented for payment, as the drawer is deprived of the use of the amount indicated therein.