Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
No. L-40195. May 29, 1987.
___________
* EN BANC.
337
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001706842ea3346c758c7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
2/21/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 150
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001706842ea3346c758c7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
2/21/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 150
338
the trial court and the Court of Appeals found, petitioner was able
to obtain the jewelry because she issued the check. Her failure to
deposit the necessary amount to cover it within three days from
notice of dishonor created the prima facie presumption
established by the amendatory law, Rep. Act No. 4885, which she
failed to rebut.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Presumption of deceit under
RA 4885, not conclusive but rebuttable; Good faith is a defense to a
charge of estafa by postdating a check.—Contrary to petitioner's
assertion, the presumption of deceit under Rep. Act No. 4885 is
not conclusive. It is rebuttable. For instance, We ruled in the case
of People v. Villapando (56 Phil. 31 [1931]) that good faith is a
defense to a charge of estafa by postdating a check, as when the
drawer, foreseeing his inability to pay the check at maturity,
made an arrangement with his creditor as to the manner of
payment of the debt.
Same; Same; Constitutional Law; No constitutional objection
to the passage of a law providing that the presumption of
innocence may be overcome by a contrary presumption founded
upon the experience of human conduct—Moreover, it is now well
settled that "there is no constitutional objection to the passage of
a law providing that the presumption of innocence may be
overcome by a contrary presumption founded upon the experience
of human conduct, and enacting what evidence shall be sufficient
to overcome such presumption of innocence" (People v. Mingoa, 92
Phil. 856 [1953] at 858-59, citing I COOLEY, A TREATISE ON
THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, 639-641). And the
"legislature may enact that when certain facts have been proved
they shall be prima facie evidence of the existence of the guilt of
the accused and shif t the burden of proof provided there be a
rational connection between the facts proved and the ultimate fact
presumed so that the inference of the one from proof of the others
is not unreasonable and arbitrary because of lack of connection
between the two in common experience" (People v. Mingoa, supra.
See also US v. Luling, 34 Phil. 725 [1916]).
Same; Same; Same; Postdating or issuing a check in payment
of 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 is a false pretense or a fraudulent act—There can be no
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001706842ea3346c758c7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
2/21/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 150
339
CORTES, J.:
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001706842ea3346c758c7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
2/21/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 150
342
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001706842ea3346c758c7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
2/21/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 150
344
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001706842ea3346c758c7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
2/21/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 150
_____________
** See also People v. Lilius, supra, where the drawer, upon issuing the
check, stated that he was not sure whether he had sufficient funds in the
drawee bank, and that if he did not have, he would cable to have sufficient
funds placed to his credit.
345
SO ORDERED.
Decision affirmed.
——o0o——
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001706842ea3346c758c7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11