Haystack: People vs. Reyes (GRs 101127-31, 18 November 1993)

People vs. Reyes
[G.R. Nos. 101127-31. November 18, 1993.]
First Division, Cruz (J): 2 concurring, 1 on leave

Facts: Lorie Garcia came to know Cresencia Reyes through Manny Cabrera, a friend and business acquaintance of Garcia, who requested her to deliver rice to Reyes because he had no more stock to sell. Garcia initially refused but eventually agreed to sell to Reyes but only on the condition that Reyes first make a purchase order and, upon delivery, pay 50% of the cost of the rice, the balance to be paid with a postdated check. The first purchase order was for 200 sacks. On 4 April 1986, Garcia delivered to Reyes 100 sacks of rice worth P31,500.00, for which two checks were issued by Reyes, each in the amount of P15,750.00. One was dated 4 April 1986 and the other 10 April 1986. On 9 April 1986, Garcia delivered 98 more sacks of rice to Reyes, and Reyes again issued two checks, each in the amount of P14,210.00, the first dated 10 April 1986, and the other 15 April 1986. On 9 April 1986, Reyes placed another order for 200 sacks of rice, which Garcia delivered to her on the same day. While the 200 sacks were being unloaded, Reyes asked to buy an additional 200 sacks, and since there were 400 sacks of rice loaded on the trucks, Garcia agreed to sell the whole stock to her. For the 400 sacks (plus 2 more sacks to complete the first purchase order for 200 sacks), Reyes again issued two checks, each for P66,330.00, one dated 9 April 1986 and the other 15 April 1986. All the checks were drawn against the BPI España Branch. Of the 6 checks issued by Reyes, only 3 were made good, to wit, the check dated 4 April 1986 for P15,750.00, which was encashed by Garcia; the check dated 10 April 1986 for P14,210.00, which was redeemed by Reyes; and the check dated 9 April 1986 for P66,330.00, which was paid by Reyes by installments. The other 3 checks were, either upon encashment or deposit, returned by the drawee bank to Garcia due to "insufficient funds." Garcia notified Reyes of their dishonor and the latter promised to pay her their total value. Despite repeated demands on Reyes, however, she failed to make good the checks or to replace them with cash.

5 criminal cases filed against Reyes (Criminal Cases 86-51206 to 86-51208, for violation of BP 22 in connection with the issuance of BPI Check 308202 for P15,750.00, BPI Check 308223 for P14,210.00, BPI Check 308226 for P66,330.00, and Criminal Cases 86-51209 and 86-51210, both for estafa involving the same checks) before the RTC Manila. After the prosecution had rested its case, Reyes manifested through her counsel that she would file a demurrer to evidence. She did not do so during the 10-day period allowed her, whereupon the trial court, on motion of the prosecution, declared the cases submitted for decision. Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration, Reyes, assisted by her counsel, submitted a waiver of appearance. On 12 March 1991, Judge Angelina S. Gutierrez rendered the decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and sentencing her to suffer imprisonment of 6 months and to pay the fine of P15,750 in Criminal case 51206, to suffer 6 months imprisonment and to pay P14,210 fine in Criminal Case 51207, to suffer 1 year imprisonment and to pay P66,330 fine in Criminal Case 51208, to suffer 22 years of reclusion perpetua together with the accessory penalties and to indemnify the complaining witness by way of actual damages in the sum of P80,540.00 and to pay the costs in Criminal Case 51209, and to suffer a indeterminate penalty of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum together with the accessory penalties and to indemnify the complaining witness by way of actual damages in the sum of P15,750.00 and to pay the costs in Criminal Case 51210. Hence, the appeal.

On 13 May 1992, the First Division referred en consulta to the Court en banc the question of whether Reyes, having been sentenced to serve 22 years of reclusion perpetua, should be allowed to remain on bail during the pendency of her appeal. On 7 August 1992, the Court en banc ordered the surrender of Reyes by her bondsman to the RTC Manila (Branch 37) for her confinement by the Bureau of Corrections.

Supreme Court affirmed the challenged decision and denied the appeal, with costs against Reyes.

1. Filing of two sets of information does not itself give rise to double jeopardy; People vs. Miraflores
While the filing of the two sets of Information under the provisions of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 and under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, on estafa, may refer to identical acts committed by petitioner, the prosecution thereof cannot be limited to one offense, because a single criminal act may give rise to a multiplicity of offenses and where there is variance or differences between the elements of an offense in one law and another law as in the case at bar there will be no double jeopardy because what the rule on double jeopardy prohibits refers to identity of elements in the 2 offenses. Otherwise stated, prosecution for the same act is not prohibited. What is forbidden is prosecution for the same offense. Hence, the mere filing of the 2 sets of information does not itself give rise to double jeopardy (People v. Miraflores, 115 SCRA 570).

2. Gravamen of offense punished by BP 22
The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment. The law has made the mere act of issuing a bad check a malum prohibitum, an act proscribed by the legislature for being deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare.

3. Purpose of BP 22; Lozano vs. Martinez
In Lozano v. Martinez, it was said that “the effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interest of the community at large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public. The harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation, multiplied a thousandfold, can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest.”

4. BP 22 applies even in cases where dishonored checks were issued merely in the form of deposit or guaranty; No distinction made in the law as held in Que vs. People
BP 22 applies even in cases where the dishonored checks were issued merely in the form of a deposit or a guaranty and not as actual payment. The law does not make any distinction. Criminal liability attaches to the drawer of the check whether it was issued in payment of an obligation or merely to guarantee the said obligation. As held in Que v. People, “Inasmuch as the law does not make any distinction in this regard, no such distinction can be made by means of interpretation or application. Furthermore, the history of the enactment of subject statutes evinces the definite legislative intent to make the prohibition all embracing, without making any exception from the operation thereof in favor of a guarantee. This intent may be gathered from the statement of the sponsor of the bills . . . which was enacted later into BP 22, when it was introduced before the Batasang Pambansa that the bill was introduced to discourage the issuance of bouncing checks, to prevent checks from becoming ‘useless scrap of paper’ and to restore respectability to checks, all without distinction as to the purpose of the issuance of the checks . . .” What are important are the facts that the accused had deliberately issued the checks in question to cover accounts and that the checks were dishonored upon presentment regardless of whether or not the accused merely issued the checks as a guarantee.

5. Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 4885
Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 4885, penalizes any person who shall defraud another "by postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check." To constitute estafa under this provision, the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of the defraudation; as such, it should be either prior to or simultaneous with the act of fraud. The offender must be able to obtain money or property from the offended party because of the issuance of the check, whether postdated or not. It must be shown that the person to whom the check was delivered would not have parted with his money or property were it not for the issuance of the check by the other party. Stated otherwise, the check should have been issued as an inducement for the surrender by the party deceived of his money or property and not in payment of a pre-existing obligation.

6. Deceit palpable
The deceit practiced by Reyes on Garcia is all too palpable. Reyes was able to maintain Garcia's confidence by making good 3 of the checks she had issued and thus giving Garcia the impression that the other checks, which she could not yet present for payment, would be honored. Reyes's timing was clever. She saw to it that one of her checks for the first delivery was valid (and was subsequently encashed) before she made her second purchase, for which she issued two more checks. She redeemed one of these checks before she bought the final 400 sacks, for which she issued another two checks. All this time, Garcia believed that the remaining postdated checks she had yet to encash were all good when they were in fact all worthless. Reyes had a zero balance at the time the checks were issued and also when they were presented for payment. The dishonored checks she had issued to Garcia had a total value of P96,290.00, and this represented the damage sustained by Garcia because of the appellant's deceit. Reyes had issued these checks upon her fraudulent assurance to Garcia that they were fully funded.

7. Failure to fund checks within grace period raised prima facie inference of deceit
When Reyes failed to make good the checks within three days from receipt of notice of their dishonor and the demand from the complainant for their value, or simply said, her failure to take advantage of the grace period offered by the law, raised the prima facie inference of deceit consisting of "false pretense or a fraudulent act."

8. Checks not payment for pre-existing obligation
The subject checks were issued by Reyes (and accepted by Garcia) in exchange for the 3 deliveries of rice as each delivery was made. The postdated checks were issued by Reyes not as payment for a pre-existing obligation but as the consideration for each shipment of rice she received from Garcia.

9. Deceit forfeit all feelings of charity or kindness towards accused
The trial court observed the personality of Reyes as past 50, a physically handicapped lady whose height is barely 2 feet. In fact, whenever she came to court, she was always assisted by one or two companions; but is well educated and speaks English fluently. This unique combination of bizarre physical make-up and seeming trustworthiness which led others to repose their confidence in her. Her counsel manifested that she is also facing similar charges in other branches of the trial court. What is especially tragic is that Reyes has chosen to use this handicap for the deception of Garcia, who trusted her partly out of sympathy for her abnormal appearance. By her deceitfulness, Reyes has forfeited all feelings of charity or kindness toward her and earned instead the punishment of the laws she has scorned.

	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.