Crim Case #29

Criminal Intent vs. Motive (Presumption of Criminal Intent: General vs. Specific)
GR No. 168217
Joy Lee Recuerdo vs. People

FACTS:
- Joy Lee Recuerdo, a dental practitioner, issued 18 worthless bank checks to Yolanda G. Floro
as payment for pieces of jewelry.
- Petitioner, with intent to gain and by means of deceit, false pretenses and fraudulent
manifestations, and pretending to have sufficient funds, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously prepare, draw, make and issue the postdated checks; she was
charged with Estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the RPC.
- Petitioner argues that:
o She acted in good faith; she made monthly cash payments to lessen her civil liability,
and continued to make payments even during the pendency of the case in CA
o Her failure to comply with obligations does not suggest deceit but at best only
financial hardship, thus there is no factual and legal basis to convict her of estafa
o There can be no embezzlement if the mind of the person doing the act is innocent or
if there is no wrongful purpose

ISSUE: WON petitioner is guilty of estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the RPC

HELD: Yes.
- Elements of estafa were concretely established through convincing evidence:
o Postdating/issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted simultaneously
at the time the check was issued
o Postdating/issuance was done when the offender had no funds in the bank, or that
his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check
o Damage to the payee thereof
- Petitioner never offered to pay the amounts of the checks after she was informed that they
had been dishonored by the banks; her insistence of her good faith was a last ditch effort to
secure her acquittal; long prison term jolted her into paying, not good faith.
- Deceit was evident; burn checks were issued to Floro in order to induce here to part with the
pieces of jewelry in favor of Recuerdo.

RULING: IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. No costs.

KEYNOTE:
General intent – element of all crimes; presumed from the criminal act and in the absence of any
general intent is relied upon as a defense, which must be proved by the accused
Specific intent – definite and actual purpose to accomplish some particular thing; not presumed; must
pre proved by the State; may be shown by the nature of the act, the circumstances under which it was
committed, the means employed, and the motive of the accused.

In this case, there was specific criminal intent to overreach another through the issuance of checks.
Recuerdo already has the jewelries in hand when she issued the burned post-dated checks, knowing
full well that the bank has no sufficient funds.