View full case

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO TUGBANG

FACTS:

The accused, Roberto Tugbang and Ma. Elnora Setias, were charged with "Estafa thru Falsification of a Commercial Documents" for defrauding Gloria de los Santos. They misrepresented themselves as the General Manager and Treasurer of SouthWest Development and Industrial Group, Inc. and induced de los Santos to transfer her investments to their company by promising higher returns and protection. They issued postdated checks as security. De los Santos made an initial investment of P20,000 and the accused issued a check for that amount. Setias delivered an amount allegedly representing the return of de los Santos' investment, convincing her to make more investments. In total, de los Santos delivered an aggregate amount of P262,800 to the accused. The accused did not have authorization to represent the company or issue checks on its behalf. The accused unlawfully appropriated and converted the amount to their own use. They pleaded not guilty during arraignment and were eventually found guilty. Roberto Tugbang died before the final judgment, thus extinguishing his liability. The case on appeal pertains only to accused Elnora Setias. De los Santos testified that the accused persuaded her to withdraw her money and invest it in SouthWest with the promise of higher dividend. She gave P20,000 as an initial investment and received postdated checks as evidence of her investment. Setias would meet her every month to hand her cash dividends. However, in March 1977, de los Santos did not receive her dividend and complained. She deposited the postdated checks but they were all dishonored by the bank. It was discovered that the checks were not from SouthWest but from Rochel General Merchant, owned by Tugbang. The checking account against which the checks were issued was opened by Tugbang and his wife and was closed in June 1977. Tugbang admitted receiving money from his mother-in-law but denied misrepresenting any transaction to her.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Tugbang and Setias are guilty of estafa through false pretenses or fraudulent acts.

  2. Whether or not Tugbang and Setias are guilty of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 due to the dishonor of the checks.

  3. Whether the accused can be convicted for estafa by postdating bad checks through falsification of commercial document.

  4. Whether or not the checks issued by the accused were the efficient cause of defraudation.

  5. Whether or not the accused can be held civilly liable for the unpaid value of the check.

RULING:

  1. Tugbang and Setias are guilty of estafa through false pretenses or fraudulent acts. The Supreme Court held that the accused, through misrepresentation, induced the private complainant to give them money by making her believe that the money will be invested in SouthWest's money market business. However, the private complainant's money was not invested with SouthWest and the checks issued to her were not from the corporation but from Rochel General Merchant, a trading firm owned by Tugbang. The Court found that the accused purposely made false representations in order to deceive the private complainant and obtain her money.

  2. Tugbang and Setias are guilty of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. The Court ruled that the issuance of the checks and their subsequent dishonor due to insufficiency of funds or the closure of the account constitutes a violation of BP 22. The evidence clearly showed that the accused issued postdated checks to the private complainant with knowledge that they did not have sufficient funds in the account or that the account had already been closed.

  3. The Supreme Court agrees with the accused that the facts presented cannot support her conviction for estafa. The trial court erred in considering the failure of the accused to disclose the investment details and the issuance of checks without sufficient funds as falsification by false narration of facts. The word "statements" in Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code refers to statements made in a document and not oral recitations of facts. The act of the accused in drawing checks without sufficient funds is not falsification but an order to pay. The elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code were not present in this case as the checks were not issued as payment but as security for an investment, and there was no showing that the complainant had parted with her money because of the issuance of checks.

  4. The checks issued by the accused could not have been the efficient cause of the defraudation. At the time the checks were given, the bank account did not exist and the check stubs had not been issued. It was also possible that the checks were issued as collaterals to be encashed at a later date when sufficient funds would be deposited to cover the amount of the checks.

  5. The accused can be held civilly liable for the unpaid value of the check. Although the accused were acquitted of the criminal charge, they can still be held civilly liable if the facts established by the evidence warrant it. In this case, the trial court correctly found that the accused is jointly liable for the unpaid value of the check. Since one of the accused had already died and his civil liability extinguished, the remaining accused is adjudged liable to the complainant for half of the amount with legal interest until fully paid. The award of moral and exemplary damages is not proper and should be set aside.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Estafa through false pretenses or fraudulent acts requires the offender to make a false representation in order to deceive another person and obtain something of value.

  • Dishonor of a check due to insufficiency of funds or the closure of the account is a violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.

  • The act of drawing a check without sufficient funds is not falsification by false narration of facts but an order to pay.

  • The elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code require that the check is issued as payment for an obligation contracted by the drawer at the time of issuance, that there is lack of sufficient funds to cover the check, and that there is damage to the payee.

  • The checks must be the efficient cause of defraudation to be considered as evidence of falsification of a commercial document.

  • An accused acquitted of a criminal charge may still be held civilly liable if the facts established by the evidence warrant it.