Pacheco vs. C.A.
00, less
G.R. Number 126670 | 319 SCRA 595 | December 2, 1999 | Ynares-Santiago, J.
Petition: Certiorari
Petitioners: Ernesto T. Pacheco and Virginia O. Pacheco
Respondents: Honorable Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines
Sections 12-13, Negotiable Instruments Law
DOCTRINE
 No permission needs to be asked to place a date on the check, because
a holder of the check may insert the date when no date has been placed
by the drawer/maker, pursuant to Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments
Law
 Pursuant to Section 12 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, a negotiable
instrument is not rendered invalid by reason only that it is antedated or
postdated
Negotiable Instruments Law Provision
Sec. 12. Ante-dated and post-dated. – The instrument is not invalid for the
reason only that it is ante-dated or post-dated, provided this is not done for
an illegal or fraudulent purpose. The person to whom an instrument so dated
is delivered acquires the title thereto as of the date of delivery.
Sec. 13. When date may be inserted. – Where an instrument expressed to
be payable at a fixed period after date is issued undated, or where the
acceptance of an instrument payable at a fixed period after sight is undated,
any holder may insert therein the true date of issue or acceptance, and the
instrument shall be payable accordingly. The insertion of a wrong date does
not avoid the instrument in the hands of a subsequent holder in due course;
but as to him, the date so inserted is to be regarded as the true date.
FACTS
 Spouses Pacheco were engaged in the construction business; Romualdo
Vicencio was a former Judge and his wife, Luz Vicencio, owns a pawnshop
in Samar
 Due to delays in payments by DPWH, petitioner spouses had financial
difficulties, leading them to contract a loan with the Vicencio’s amounting
to P10,000.00
o Vicencio’s consented, but Mr. Vicencio ordered them to issue an
undated RCBC check as evidence of the loan which, allegedly, will
not be presented to the bank; said check functioned as a promissory
note and would be non-negotiable
 Spouses Pacheco said that they had insufficient funds in the
bank but Vicencio’s insisted on the issuance of the undated
check
 Mrs. Vicencio also said that Mr. Ernesto Pacheco sign the
check, even if it would not be encashed
Kool Kids 2016 | ALS 2D
AURELIO | BALLESTEROS | BATUNGBACAL | BILIRAN | CADIENTE | DONES | GALLARDO | GESTA | GUBATAN | PINTOR | SY | TOLEDO
 Spouses Pacheco were able to receive P9,000.
P1,000.00 as 10% interest on the loan
 Mrs. Virginia Pacheco later on obtained another loan amounting to
P50,000.00 but was only able to receive P35,000.00 since the earlier loan
of P10,000.00 and 10% interest was already deducted
o Since the first loan had already been paid, Mrs. Pacheco asked for
the undated check but Mrs. Vicencio, despite several demands, did
not give the check (at first, the clerk was absent; later on, folder
containing the check could not be located)
o Mrs. Vicencio asked Mrs. Pacheco to issue three new undated RCBC
checks (two for P20,000.00 and one for P10,000.00) for the
P50,000.00 loan (same arrangement as before)
 Due to dire financial need, Mrs. Pacheco did so
 Mrs. Pacheco later on, obtained two more loans, amounting to P10,000.00
and P15,000.00, with the same arrangement as before
 Loans amounted to P85,000.00
o P10,000.00 was paid when the second loan was obtained
o Spouses Pacheco were able to pay P60,000.000 in cash
o Remaining balance of P15,000.00 which became due and
demandable
 Spouses Pacheco were not able to pay the P15,000.00 remaining balance
despite demand from Spouses Vicencio
o Mrs. Vicencio, with Mr. Vicencio and their daughter Lucille went to
Mrs. Pacheco at the latter’s residence and insisted that she place the
date “August 15, 1992” on checks nos. 10175 and 101774; Mrs.
Vicencio said that this should be done as evidence of the Pachecos’
indebtedness
o Mrs. Pacheco reluctantly agreed even as she told them that she had
insufficient funds in the RCBC bank account; she also feared that she
might not be able to obtain any loans from the Vicencio’s in the future
 Spouses Pacheco then received a demand letter from Mr. Vicencio, saying
that the checks, when presented, bounced due to the bank account being
closed (“ACCOUNT CLOSED”)
o Two informations for estafa were also filed against the spouses
Pacheco
 RTC ruled against the Pacheco’s, sentencing them to
imprisonment and to pay P25,000.00 to Vicencio’s; CA
affirmed
ISSUES
1. W/N the spouses Pacheco are criminally liable for committing estafa – NO
2. W/N dates may validly be placed on the undated checks – YES
RULING & RATIO
1. The Pacheco’s are not criminally liable N-12_13-01 Pacheco v CA.pdf
Page 1 of 2
 a. Court: The Vicencio’s and the Pacheco’s had an agreement to
treat the checks are mere evidence for the indebtedness
i. Both parties agreed that the checks would be non-
negotiable and that they would serve as mere promissory
notes
ii. People v Tugbang: A drawer who issues a check as
security or evidence of investment is not liable for estafa
iii. Pacheco’s even informed the Vicencio’s, on multiple
occasions at that, that they had insufficient funds in their
bank account to settle the loans, and that the Vicencio’s
agreed that the checks were not to be encashed

2. Pursuant to the Negotiable Instruments Law, dates may be placed on the

undated checks
a. Mr. Vicencio, being a retired judge, shoud have known this
b. No permission needs to be asked to place a date on the check,
because a holder of the check may insert the date when no date
has been placed by the drawer/maker, pursuant to Section 13 of
the Negotiable Instruments Law
c. Also, Pursuant to Section 12 of the Negotiable Instruments Law,
a negotiable instrument is not rendered invalid by reason only that
it is antedated or postdated

*On the matter of the jewelry that the Pacheco’s allegedly bought from the
Vicencio’s, the Court said that the evidence on hand does not support the
existence of the crime; that the two checks presented as evidence for the
alleged sale were specifically chosen by the Vicencio’s since the amounts
therein jived with the alleged amounts of the jewelry that the Pacheco’s
supposedly bought
-Checks were only to serve as security, as promissory notes, and not
as mode of payment which may be encashed; thus, no estafa by
deceit was committed
-Also, Vicencio’s were not engaged in the business of jewelries; also,
if the jewelries were indeed that valuable (that it was with the
Vicencio’s for 25 years already), they would not have parted with it
with the consideration as unsatable as unfunded personal checks
from persons whose means of living or source of income were
unknown to them

DISPOSITION
 Pacheco’s acquitted from estafa but are still obligated to pay the remaining
balance of P15,000.00

Kool Kids 2016 | ALS 2D N-12_13-01 Pacheco v CA.pdf

AURELIO | BALLESTEROS | BATUNGBACAL | BILIRAN | CADIENTE | DONES | GALLARDO | GESTA | GUBATAN | PINTOR | SY | TOLEDO Page 2 of 2