View full case

PEOPLE v. CRESENCIA C. REYES

FACTS:

The appellant, Cresencia Reyes, was convicted of estafa and violation of BP 22 under five separate informations by the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Complainant Lorie Garcia, through Manny Cabrera, introduced Reyes as a business acquaintance and requested Garcia to deliver rice to Reyes. Garcia agreed to sell rice to Reyes on the condition that Reyes first issued a purchase order and paid 50% of the cost of the rice upon delivery, with the balance to be paid through a postdated check. Reyes issued checks to Garcia for the delivered rice, but only three out of the six checks were honored, with the rest returned due to insufficient funds. Despite repeated demands, Reyes failed to replace the dishonored checks with cash. Reyes was subsequently charged with estafa and violation of BP 22 in five separate cases. The trial court then convicted Reyes and imposed penalties for each offense. Reyes appealed the decision, arguing, among others, that the issuance of the checks was involved in a credit transaction and that there was no deceit employed in the issuance of the checks.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the appellant should be convicted of estafa and violation of BP 22.

  2. Whether there was deceit employed in the issuance of the checks.

  3. Whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the appellant's conviction for estafa and violation of BP 22.

  4. Whether the appellant can be convicted for estafa even if the check was issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation.

RULING:

  1. The Court finds for the People. The appellant can be convicted of estafa and violation of BP 22. The Court re-affirms the doctrine that the filing of two sets of information for the same act does not give rise to double jeopardy as long as there is variance or differences between the elements of the offenses charged. The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A single criminal act may give rise to a multiplicity of offenses.

  • The rule on double jeopardy prohibits prosecution for the same offense, not for the same act.

  • The offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check. It is a malum prohibitum offense.