People v. Recuerdo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In September 1994, three separate criminal informations were filed against Joy Lee Recuerdo for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. The charges stemmed from the issuance of eighteen worthless bank checks as payment for jewelry purchased from Yolanda G. Floro. Specifically, six Unitrust checks totaling P132,000.00, six PCI Bank checks totaling P78,000.00, and six Prudential Bank checks totaling P600,000.00 were dishonored for being drawn against closed accounts. The prosecution alleged that Recuerdo issued these postdated checks with intent to gain and by means of deceit, knowing she had insufficient funds, causing damage to Floro. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, consolidated the three criminal cases and conducted a joint trial. Recuerdo pleaded not guilty and raised defenses including lack of jurisdiction, arguing the offenses occurred in Makati City, and that the issuance of checks after examining the jewelry did not constitute deceit. On July 28, 1997, the RTC convicted Recuerdo of two counts of estafa, sentencing her to indeterminate penalties and ordering her to pay civil indemnity. Recuerdo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), assigning errors related to the RTC's findings, double jeopardy, and the prosecutor's authority. On August 23, 2004, the CA affirmed the RTC's decision with modification regarding the penalty. Recuerdo's motion for reconsideration, arguing that some checks were honored and she made partial payments, was denied on May 20, 2005. The Petition: Recuerdo filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, contending that the CA erred in convicting her, particularly by not applying the ruling in People v. Ojeda, which held that arrangements for payment and actual payment indicate good faith, rebutting the presumption of deceit. She argued that her efforts to settle her obligations, including making partial payments and offering payment schemes, demonstrated her good faith and absence of deceit. She also highlighted that some of the issued checks were honored. The Office of the Solicitor General, however, asserted that the elements of deceit and damage were proven, distinguishing the present case from Ojeda due to Recuerdo's failure to make earnest efforts to settle her obligations and the simultaneous issuance of checks with the purchase of jewelry. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that Recuerdo's actions did not demonstrate good faith and that her reliance on Ojeda was misplaced given the factual differences, particularly her initial refusal to pay the dishonored checks.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, had jurisdiction over the criminal cases. Whether the issuance of postdated checks after the delivery of the jewelry constitutes estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the petitioner acted in good faith in issuing the checks. Whether the petitioner's subsequent partial payments and the honoring of some checks warrant acquittal. Whether the ruling in People v. Ojeda is applicable to the present case.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan: The Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the RTC. While the petitioner claimed the transactions occurred in Makati City, the prosecution presented evidence that the complainant, Yolanda G. Floro, conducted her business in Meycauayan, Bulacan, and that the petitioner visited her residence there to purchase jewelry and issue checks. The place where the deceitful acts were consummated, which is where the victim suffered damage, determines the venue. In this case, the damage was suffered by the complainant in Bulacan. On whether the issuance of postdated checks after delivery constitutes estafa: The Court reiterated that for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, the check must be issued in payment of an obligation contracted simultaneously at the time the check was issued. The issuance of checks for a pre-existing obligation does not constitute estafa. The prosecution's evidence, particularly the testimony of the complainant, established that the checks were issued as payment for the jewelry on the very same occasions the jewelry was purchased, thus satisfying the element of simultaneity. The petitioner's claim that the checks were issued days later was contradicted by the complainant's credible testimony. On whether the petitioner acted in good faith: The Court found that the petitioner did not act in good faith. Her defense of good faith was considered an afterthought, raised only in her motion for reconsideration. The evidence showed that when the checks were dishonored and demands for payment were made, she intransigently refused to pay, insisting the checks were issued after delivery of the jewelry. Her subsequent payments were made only after the CA affirmed the conviction and increased the penalty, suggesting they were prompted by the specter of imprisonment rather than genuine good faith. On the effect of subsequent partial payments and honored checks: The Court clarified that while nine of the seventeen checks were honored and partial payments were made, these do not extinguish criminal liability. Reimbursement or restitution extinguishes civil liability pro tanto but not criminal liability. Estafa is a public offense prosecuted by the State, and subsequent payments do not obliterate the criminal liability already incurred. The consent of the complainant to civil liability payments pendente lite does not entitle the petitioner to acquittal. On the applicability of People v. Ojeda: The Court distinguished the present case from People v. Ojeda. In Ojeda, the accused made extraordinary efforts to gradually pay and settle her obligations, and the complainant even executed an affidavit of desistance. In contrast, Recuerdo merely promised to pay, never made earnest efforts to arrange a payment scheme, and her subsequent payments were made only after conviction. Furthermore, in Ojeda, the prosecution failed to prove notice of dishonor, whereas in this case, formal demands were made upon Recuerdo. The Court found the factual backdrop of the two cases to be significantly different, rendering the doctrine in Ojeda inapplicable.
Main Doctrine
Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code requires the simultaneous issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of issuance, the lack of sufficient funds, and damage to the payee. Good faith negates malice and deceit. While the dishonor of checks constitutes prima facie evidence of deceit, this presumption can be rebutted. Subsequent payment of the civil liability does not extinguish criminal liability.