View full case

PEOPLE v. ALOMA REYES

FACTS:

Appellant Alamo Reyes was convicted of estafa for postdating a bouncing check and was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua as maximum. Appellant claims that she issued the subject check in payment of a pre-existing obligation, making her liable civilly, not criminally. Private complainant Jules-Berne Alabastro counters that appellant, together with her daughter and co-accused Trichia Mae Reyes, issued him the check for rediscounting. The information filed against the appellant and Trichia Mae Reyes stated that they conspired and confederated to defraud by issuing a check for payment of an obligation in the amount of P280,000.00, which was dishonored for the reason "ACCOUNT CLOSED." Appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented witnesses, including Danilo Go from Allied Bank who testified about the account ledger card and the dishonored check. Private complainant Jules-Berne I. Alabastro testified that he discounted several checks for appellant, but the subject check was the only one that was not replaced with cash and was dishonored. The defense presented only the testimony of appellant herself.

The appellant, engaged in the wholesale of soft drinks, borrowed money from the private complainant and would replace it with checks. The appellant allegedly issued sixteen NOW checks as installment payments to settle her outstanding obligations with the private complainant. The subject check was supposed to be the last installment payment on March 31, 1998. However, during her arrest, the appellant claimed to be surprised about a P280,000.00 check because she believed she only issued checks not exceeding P13,000.00. The appellant explained that she got confused because there were two NOW checks dated March 31, 1998, with different amounts. The appellant also claimed that she did not receive a demand letter as she was mostly in the farm and alleged that the private complainant was the one who filled in the blank entries on the checks.

The private complainant maintained that the subject check was complete when it was handed to him for rediscounting, although he did not know who filled in the date and amount. He claimed that the appellant and her daughter's signatures were missing on the checks when they signed them in his presence. The private complainant speculated that the appellant needed a larger amount for their soft drink business at the time. The court convicted the appellant for estafa based on the evidence presented.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial court erred in considering the NOW instrument as a check under Article 315 Paragraph 2(D) of the Revised Penal Code.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the subject check falls within the definition of a "check" under the Negotiable Instruments Law.

  2. Whether or not the elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code were sufficiently established.

  3. Whether the issuance of a check in payment of a pre-existing obligation constitutes estafa, even if there is no fund in the bank to cover the amount of the check.

  4. Whether the inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness are enough to discredit her credibility.

  5. Whether the accused can be held civilly liable despite being acquitted of estafa.

  6. Whether the case should be remanded for reception of further evidence to determine the civil liability of the accused.

RULING:

  1. The subject check falls within the definition of a "check" under the Negotiable Instruments Law. Although it is payable only to a specific person and not valid when made payable to "BEARER" or to "CASH" or when indorsed by the payee to another person, this restriction does not strip the check of its character of negotiability. The purpose of the restriction is to ensure that the check will be encashed only by the rightful payee. The gravamen of the crime of estafa through bouncing checks is the fraud or deceit employed in issuing a worthless check, regardless of negotiability.

  2. The elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code were sufficiently established. These elements include the postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued, lack of sufficient funds to cover the check, and damage to the payee. In this case, the prosecution was able to prove that the accused issued the subject check in payment of a preexisting debt, there were insufficient funds to cover the check, and the payee suffered damage as a result.

  3. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, reversing the decision of the lower court. The court held that the issuance of a check should be the means to obtain money or property from the payee. Hence, a check issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation does not constitute estafa even if there is no fund in the bank to cover the amount of the check. In this case, the evidence on record debunks the theory of private complainant that appellant issued him the subject check for rediscounting. Both parties admitted that the check was issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation. Private complainant also knew that appellant's account was closed at the time he allegedly discounted the subject check. Therefore, there was no deceit or damage attending the transaction, and thus, no estafa.

  4. The inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness do not necessarily render her testimony entirely unbelievable. The inconsistencies are minor and do not go to the core of her testimony. Therefore, her credibility is not discredited.

  5. The accused can be held civilly liable even if acquitted of estafa. In this case, the records lack sufficient evidence to determine the amount of her remaining obligation.

  6. Since the evidence on record is not sufficient to determine the civil liability of the accused, the case should be remanded to the trial court for the reception of further evidence.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The issuance of a check should be the means to obtain money or property from the payee.

  • A check issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation does not constitute estafa even if there is no fund in the bank to cover the amount of the check.

  • Knowledge by the payee that the drawer did not have sufficient funds in the bank at the time the check was issued negates the element of deceit and constitutes a defense in estafa through bouncing checks.

  • An accused acquitted of estafa may still be liable civilly in the same case, if the evidence warrants it.

  • Inconsistencies in a witness' testimony do not automatically discredit their credibility if the inconsistencies are minor and do not go to the core of their testimony.

  • The court is not a trier of facts and if the evidence on record is not sufficient to determine a conclusion, the case should be remanded to the trial court for further evidence.