SECOND
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE
OF THE Appellee, - versus - ELIZABETH CARDENAS, Appellant. |
G.R. No. 178064 Present:
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO
MORALES, TINGA, VELASCO, JR., and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: February
10, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
On complaint of Nenette Musni
(Nenit), four Informations each charging Elizabeth Cardenas (appellant) with
estafa were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Criminal Case No. 8740-13 alleged:
x x x x
That on or about the 15th day of October, 1994, in the City of Laoag, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused with deceit and intent to defraud, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously issue the following checks:
|
CHECK
NO. |
AMOUNT |
POSTDATED |
|
001247A |
|
|
|
001248A |
|
|
in favor of Nenette[1] Musni, against the drawee Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank [PCIB], Vigan Branch, affixing therein a signature different from her specimen signature on file with the drawee bank and representing that the checks will be paid when presented for payment, simultaneous to and as payment for jewelries purchased by the accused from Nenette Musni, which checks were subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank when presented for payment due to signature different on file and for having been drawn against insufficient funds, and despite notice to the accused of the dishonor of her checks and demands made upon her by Nenette Musni for the cash replacement of the checks, the accused had refused and failed to do so, to the damage and prejudice of Nenete Musni.[2]
Criminal
Case No. 8741-13 alleged:
That on or about the 15th day of November, 1994, in the City of Laoag, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused with deceit and intent to defraud, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously issue the following checks:
|
CHECK NO. |
AMOUNT |
POSTDATED |
|
001226A |
|
|
|
001227A |
|
|
in favor of Nenette Musni, against the drawee Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank Vigan Branch, affixing therein a signature different from her specimen signature on file with the drawee bank and representing that the checks will be paid when presented for payment, simultaneous to and as payment for jewelries purchased by the accused from Nenette Musni, which checks were subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank when presented for payment due to signature different on file and for having been drawn against insufficient funds, and despite notice to the accused of the dishonor of her checks and demands made upon her by Nenette Musni for the cash replacement of the checks, the accused had refused to do so, to the damage and prejudice of Nenette Musni.[3]
x x x x
Criminal
Case No. 8742-13 alleged:
x x x x
That on or about the 2nd day of November, 1994, in the City of Laoag, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused with deceit and intent to defraud, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously issue the following checks:
|
CHECK
NO. |
AMOUNT |
POSTDATED |
|
001231A |
|
|
|
001232A |
|
|
|
001233A |
|
|
in favor of Nenette Musni, against the drawee Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank Vigan Branch, affixing therein a signature different from her specimen signature on file with the drawee bank and representing that the checks will be paid when presented for payment, simultaneous to and as payment for jewelries purchased by the accused from Nennette Musni, which checks were subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank when presented for payment due to signature different on file and for having been drawn against a closed account for Check No. 001231A and against insufficient funds for Check Nos. 001232A and 001233A, and despite notice to the accused of the dishonor of her checks and demands made upon her by Nenette Musni for the cash replacement of the checks, the accused had refused to do so, to the damage and prejudice of Nenette Musni.[4]
x x x x
Criminal Case No. 8743-13 alleged:
x x x x
That on or about the 15th day of December, 1994, in the City of Laoag, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused with deceit and intent to defraud, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously issue the following checks:
|
CHECK NO. |
AMOUNT |
POSTDATED |
|
001222A |
|
|
|
001260A |
|
|
in favor of Nenette Musni, against the drawee Philippine Commercial Industrial Bank Vigan Branch, affixing therein a signature different from her specimen signature on file with the drawee bank for Check No. 001222A and representing that the checks will be paid when presented for payment, simultaneous to and as payment for jewelries purchased by the accused from Nenette Musni, which checks were subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank when presented for payment due to signature different on file for Check 001222A and for having been drawn against a closed account for both checks, and despite notice to the accused of the dishonor of her checks and demands made upon her by Nenette Musni for the cash replacement of the checks, the accused had refused to do so, to the damage and prejudice of Nenette Musni.[5] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied
x x x x
During
pre-trial, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the following, quoted verbatim:
IN CRIM. CASE NO.
8740-13
1.
That on
2. That the accused has a checking account with the PCIB, Vigan Branch, Vigan, Ilocos Sur;
3.
That due to such receipt of jewelries,
the accused delivered to the complainant PCIB Vigan Branch Check No. 001247A
covering the amount of P401,000.00 dated November 15, 1994 and Check No.
001248A in the amount of P401,000.00 dated December 15, 1994;
4.
That the two (2) checks were delivered by
the accused to the complaining witness on
5. That the two (2) checks aforestated were presented for payment but dishonored.
IN CRIM. CASE NO.
8741-13
1.
That on
2.
That due to such receipt of jewelries,
the accused delivered two (2) postdated checks, PCIB Vigan Branch Check No.
001226A dated December 30, 1994 covering the amount of P250,000.00 and
Check No. 001227A dated December 15, 1994 in the amount of P668,000.00;
3. That the above-mentioned checks were presented for payment with the drawee bank on their respective due dates;
4. That said checks were dishonored by the drawee bank on the ground that the signature of the drawer differs from the signature on file. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
IN CRIM. CASE NO.
8742-13
1.
That on
2.
That due to the receipt of the jewelries,
the accused delivered three (3) postdated checks to the complainant PCIB Vigan
Branch Check No. 001231A dated February 20, 1995 in the amount of P318,000.00; Check No. 001232A dated December
25, 1994 in the amount of P779,000.00 and Check No. 001233A in the
amount of P1,093,000.00 dated January
15, 1995;
3. That the said three (3) checks aforementioned were presented for payment but dishonored because the signature[s] differ from the signature on file. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
IN CRIM. CASE NO.
8743-13
1.
That the accused on
2.
That out of the receipt of the jewelries
by the accused from the complaining witness, the accused delivered two (2)
postdated checks, PCIB Vigan Branch Check No. 001222A dated March 31, 1995 in
the amount of P400,000.0 and Check No. 001260A dated March 15, 1995 in
the amount of P458,000.00;
3. That said Check No. 001222A when presented for payment was dishonored because the signature on file is different from the signature on the check;
4.
That Check No. 001260A in the amount
of P458,000.00
was delivered to the complainant with the signature of the accused, the
same being signed by her on the same date of the delivery of the jewelries.[6] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Culled
from the evidence for the prosecution is its following version:[7]
Nenit (erroneously
spelled as “Nenette” in the Informations), who does business under the name Bombom Jewelries, buys pieces of jewelry
from pawnshops for resale. In 1991, in the
course of her business operation, she was introduced to appellant to whom she
had since been selling gold. Their usual
practice was to weigh the gold and agree on the price, after which appellant would
issue checks covering the value thereof.
Nenit
and appellant’s transactions were regular until October 15, 1994 when appellant
issued Check No. 001247A for P401,000 and Check No. 001248A for the same
amount[8] covering
payment of gold, which checks were dishonored.
Nenit informed appellant of the dishonor, but she denied owing anything
to her.
On P318,000, Check No. 001232A for P779,000,
and Check No. 001233A for P1,093,000.[9] Again the checks were dishonored.
Still
again on November 15, 1994, appellant issued two postdated checks drawn against
PCIB Vigan Branch representing payment of gold purchased from Nenit: Check No. 001226A for P250,000 and
Check No. 01227A for P668,000.[10] Still
again the checks were dishonored.
Finally,
on December 15, 1994, appellant issued to Nenit two postdated checks, both
drawn against PCIB Vigan Branch: Check
No. 001222A for P400,000, and Check No. 001260A for P458,000
representing payment of gold[11] Like the previous checks, these two were
dishonored.
Nenit demanded
the settlement of the dishonored checks, but appellant maintained not having
any obligations to her.
In defense,[12] appellant
claimed that, except for Check No. 1260A, one of the two checks subject of the
fourth case, Crim. Case No. 8743-13, all the checks subject of the cases were
unsigned as they were issued as a “secondary collateral.”
Explaining
the circumstances under which the checks were issued, appellant stated that
whenever Nenit entrusted to her jewelry for resale, she was required to and did
sign receipts and did issue the unsigned checks; that failing to resell the
jewelry, she would return them and ask Nenit to return to her the receipts she
signed and the unsigned checks, but Nenit would merely claim that she would
tear them; and that with respect to Check No. 1260A, for P458,000,
she having sold the jewelry covered thereby, she affixed her signature thereon,
but she did not cause the check to be honored because she and Nenit agreed to
offset the amount thereof against the amount which Nenit and her son owed her
for jewelry they had borrowed from her. [13]
Appellant
thus claimed that the signatures attributed to her on all the checks, except
Check No. 1260A for P458,000, were forged, in support of which she presented
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Senior Documents Examiner Adela
Cruz-Demantillo (Adela) who examined the signatures on the questioned checks
and concluded that the signature on Check No. 1260A and those on other checks were not made by one and the
same person.[14]
Branch
13 of the Laoag City RTC, by Decision of
WHEREFORE,
the Court renders judgment finding the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Estafa on four (4) counts as charged and therefore sentences
her to suffer for each of the charges the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment
ranging from TWELVE YEARS of prision mayor as maximum to THIRTY YEARS
of reclusion perpetua and to pay the private complainant the sum of P4,768,000.00
representing her total obligation and with legal interest thereon to be
reckoned from the finality of this judgment, with costs against her.
SO ORDERED.[15]
On
intermediate review, the Court of Appeals, by Decision[16]
of November 20, 2006, acquitted appellant in the first and second cases ─
Criminal Case Nos. 8740-13 and 8741-13 ─, the checks subject thereof
having been dishonored because the signatures thereon differed from the
specimen signatures of appellant on file at the drawee bank. The
Court of Appeals reasoned:
It may be recalled that criminal and penal statutes are strictly construed against the State, that is, they cannot be enlarged by intendment, implication, or by any equitable considerations. In other words, the language cannot be enlarged beyond the ordinary meaning of its terms in order to carry out into effect the general purpose for which the statute was enacted. The reason for dishonor goes into the element of the felony and may not justly be ignored. When the law speaks of “insufficiency of funds” as the reason for dishonor, it means just that and nothing else. x x x [17]
The appellate court,
however, affirmed the conviction of appellant in the third and fourth cases
─ Criminal Case Nos. 8742-13 and 8743-13.
Thus it disposed:
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, the court hereby ACQUITS
the accused of charges in Criminal Case Nos. 8740 and 8741, for insufficiency
of evidence; and AFFIRMS the
Decision insofar as it found the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of estafa defined
and penalized under Article 315, 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, in Criminal
Case Nos. 8742 and 8743; with the modification that the accused is to pay the
private complainant the sum of P3,048,000.00,[18]
instead of P4,768,000.00.
The
penalty imposed, “x x x sentence[ing] her to suffer for each of the charges of
the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from TWELVE YEARS of prison mayor to THIRTY YEARS of reclusion perpetua, is MAINTAINED.
The herein judgment is further appealable to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with this court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.[19] (Emphasis and italics in the original; underscoring supplied)
Hence,
the present appeal. Both the prosecution
and the defense manifested their intention not to file supplemental briefs and
to adopt the respective briefs which were considered by the Court of Appeals.[20]
In
affirming appellant’s conviction in the third and fourth cases, the appellate
court noted that the checks subject thereof were dishonored due to “payment
stopped” or “account closed.”[21] Only photocopies of the checks bearing
“payment stopped” or “account closed” stamped thereon form part of the records,[22]
however. While the Court of Appeals observed
that photocopies of the checks, which were not objected to, may be admitted as
an exception to the best evidence rule after the offeror has laid the
foundation for the unavailability of the originals, without bad faith on his
part, and has proved their existence, due execution, loss or unavailability and
content/substance,[23]
the photocopies of the checks still may not
be appreciated as they were not formally offered in evidence.[24]
More
importantly, it bears noting that, as reflected above, the relevant stipulations
of the prosecution and defense during pre-trial were that the checks, except
Check No. 001260A which is one of the two checks subject of the fourth case,
were dishonored because the signatures therein were different from appellant’s
signature on file.[25]
The
prosecution contends, however, that appellant intentionally altered her own
signature on the checks.[26] In light, however, of the findings of the
handwriting expert and, indeed, from the naked eye, a comparison of the
questioned signatures with the standard signature of appellant,[27] the
possibility that appellant’s signature on the checks in question was forged is
not ruled out.
Respecting
Check No. 001260A which, admittedly, was signed by appellant,[28] appellant
did not deny that it was dishonored for insufficiency of funds and that demand was
made for the settlement of the amount covered by it.[29] She claimed, however, that she and Nenit
agreed to set off the amount of the check against the value of the jewelry
which Nenit and her son had borrowed from her.[30] In support of her claim, she presented receipts. Brushing aside this claim, the trial court
made the following observations which this Court finds well-taken:
Neither
can the Court believe that there was an off-setting arrangement with respect to
PCIB Check No. 1260A in the amount of P458,000.00. Again, while the accused would claim that the
jewelry all valued at P420,000.00 that Carlito Musni received from her
as contained in the receipts that the latter issued, the Court observes that
there were no indications in the said receipts that the items therein
mentioned were to offset the jewelry that the accused had taken from the
complainant for which she issued the aforementioned check. There is also no
such indication in the receipt issued by complainant for a
Rosita earring
valued of P100,000.00
which was part of the alleged offsetting.
Moreover, if there was an offsetting, the accused has not fully
explained why the value of the jewelry that complainant and Carlito Musni
received from her were more than the value of the check which is P458,000.00.
x x x[31] (Underscoring supplied)
Nevertheless,
the acquittal of appellant with regard to Check No. 001260A is in order.
Undoubtedly,
appellant was, in Criminal Case No. 8743-13,
charged under Article 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code which provides:
Art. 315 2(d) Swindling (estafa). – Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means herein below . . .
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
x x x x
(d) 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. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. (Emphasis supplied)
The above-quoted accusatory
portion of the Information in said case alleges that when Check No. 001260A was
drawn, appellant “represent[ed] that the [same] w[ould] be paid when presented
for payment simultaneous to and as payment for jewelr[y purchased].”
To
constitute estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, the
issuance of a check should be the means to obtain money or property from the
payee.[32] In Ilagan
v. People,[33] the
therein accused was charged with estafa for indorsing postdated checks which
were dishonored on maturity. In
acquitting the accused, the Court noted that he and the payee had been priorly engaged
for four years in rediscounting transactions hence; the Court held that it
would have been unnecessary for the accused to assure the payee that the checks
would be sufficiently funded on maturity to convince her to change them with
cash.[34]
In the
case at bar, it is gathered that during her transactions since 1991 with Nenit,
appellant usually issued postdated checks after jewelry was turned over to her
and that in fact some of the postdated checks previously issued were dishonored
but were not made subject of criminal complaints. Appellant did not thus have to assure Nenit when
she issued on
However,
appellant’s civil liability under Check No. 001260A for P458,000 stands
in the absence of evidence that she had, as she claimed, already settled the same.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated
Appellant,
Elizabeth Cardenas, is ACQUITTED in
Criminal Case No. 8742-13.
Appellant
is likewise ACQUITTED in Criminal Case
No. 8743-13. She is, however, declared civilly
liable to the private complainant, Nenette a.k.a. Nenit Musni, insofar as the
case involves Check No. 001260A, and is ORDERED
to pay her its face value of Four Hundred Fifty Eight Thousand (P458,000.00)
Pesos.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
DANTE
O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
ATTESTATION
I attest
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Sometimes spelled as “Nenit” or “Nenita.”
[2] Records, Vol. I, p. 1.
[3] Records, Vol. II, p. 1.
[4] Records, Vol. III, p. 1.
[5] Records, Vol. IV, p. 1.
[6] Records, Vol. I, pp. 77-78.
[7] Vide TSN,
[8] Vide records, Vol. I, pp. 32-33.
[9] Vide records, Vol. III, pp. 32-34.
[10] Vide records, Vol. II, pp. 32-33.
[11] Vide records, Vol. IV, pp. 32-33.
[12] TSN, November 20, 2001, pp. 3-20; TSN, January 29, 2002, pp. 52-70; TSN, March 7, 2002, pp. 72-79; TSN, May 7, 2002, pp. 2-18; July 11, 2002, pp. 81-102.
[13] Exhibit “2” and submarkings, records, Vol. I, pp. 216-219.
[14] TSN,
[15] Id.at 249.
[16] Penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. with the concurrences of Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Vicente Q. Roxas. CA rollo, pp. 235-258.
[17] CA rollo, p. 249.
[18] The Court of Appeals did not explain
how it arrived at P3,048,000.
[19] CA
rollo, pp. 287-288.
[20] Rollo, pp. 32-34, 36-37.
[21] CA rollo, pp. 250-251.
[22] Records, Vol. III, pp. 32-34;
records, Vol. IV, p. 32.
[23] CA
rollo, p. 255. The checks were not available
during trial because they were with the Metropolitan Trial Court before which
they were subject of a case for the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (vide TSN,
[24] Vide
TSN,
[25] Records vol. I, pp. 77-78.
[26] CA rollo, p. 210.
[27] Vide Exhibits “5” and “7.”
[28] Vide
TSN,
[29] TSN,
[30] TSN,
[31] Records, Vol. I, pp. 278-279.
[32] Vide
People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 154159,
[33] G.R. No. 166873,
[34]