View full case

ANTONIO NIEVA v. CA

FACTS:

The petitioner, Antonio Nieva Jr., was convicted of estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 by the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. The case stemmed from a transaction involving the lease and eventual sale of a Toyota dump truck between petitioner and Atty. Ramon Joven. Petitioner failed to fulfill his obligations under the lease contract, including repairing the dump truck and paying the rentals. Atty. Joven confronted petitioner and demanded for the return of the truck. Petitioner offered to buy the truck for the selling price of P70,000. A week later, petitioner delivered a post-dated check to Atty. Joven as payment for the truck, but the check was dishonored due to "closed accounts". Despite repeated demands, petitioner failed to redeem the check. The Provincial Fiscal filed criminal cases against petitioner for estafa and violation of B.P Blg. 22. Petitioner was convicted and appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the ruling. Petitioner filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside his conviction for estafa.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the postdated check was issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued, and whether there is sufficient evidence to show lack or insufficient funds to cover the check, and whether there was damage to the payee.

  2. Whether the conviction of the petitioner was based on the sole and uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution witness.

  3. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to try the cases charged against the petitioner.

  4. Did the petitioner commit fraud or deceit when he issued the postdated check?

  5. Did the petitioner violate Batas Pambansa Blg. 22?

RULING:

  1. The postdated check was not issued at the time the obligation to pay for the dump truck was contracted. The check was issued one week after the contract of sale was entered into. Therefore, the elements of estafa were not present. There is no sufficient evidence to show lack or insufficient funds to cover the check, and no damage was proven to the payee.

  2. Yes, the conviction of the petitioner was based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution witness.

  3. The issue of jurisdiction was not addressed in the decision.

  4. The court held that the petitioner did not commit fraud or deceit when he issued the postdated check in payment of a pre-existing obligation. Therefore, he cannot be held liable for estafa.

  5. The court affirmed the petitioner's conviction for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The elements of the offense were present, as the petitioner made, drew, and issued a check without sufficient funds, and the check was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank.

PRINCIPLES:

  • To constitute estafa, the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of defraudation and should be either prior to or simultaneous with the act of fraud. The check must be issued as an inducement for the surrender of money or property.

  • The conviction of an accused cannot be based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a prosecution witness.

  • To be liable for estafa, the defendant must commit fraud or deceit.

  • To be convicted of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the check drawer must have knowledge at the time of issuance that there are insufficient funds in the account.

  • The prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 does not apply if the drawer pays the holder of the check or makes arrangements for payment in full within five banking days after receiving notice of non-payment.

  • Jurisdiction over violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 lies in the municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed.