PEOPLE VS JULIANO

G.R. No. 134120

January 17, 2005

FACTS:

This case was certified for review by the Court of Appeals after finding appellant Lea Sagan Juliano guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d), of the Revised Penal Code, in
Criminal Case No. 2053.

Appellant was charged of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law) in Criminal
Cases Nos. 2051 and 2052, and Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (d), of the Revised Penal Code in
Criminal Case No. 2053

On July 27, 1991, appellant Lea Sagan Juliano purchased sacks of milled rice worth P89,800 from the
complainant JCT. She issued postdated Check, dated July 30, 1991 for P89,800 in payment of the goods.
On July 30, 1991, JCT’s acting manager, encashed the check, but the drawee bank refused payment
because it was drawn against insufficient funds.

Appellant went to JCT’s office and JCTshowed her the check that bounced. Appellant pleaded that JCT
accept two checks to replace the first check that was dishonored, and JCT agreed. JCT encashed the two
replacement checks, but they were dishonored by the drawee bank. The bank issued two Check Return
Slips indicating that payment was refused because the checks were "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds."
JCT sent a demand letterto appellant informing her of the dishonor of the replacement checks.
Appellant received the demand letter.

The trial court found that appellant was guilty of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d), of the Revised
Penal Code for issuing the first check, and violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for issuing the two
replacement checks. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:

WHEREFORE, upon all the foregoing considerations, the Court finds the accused, Lea Sagan Juliano,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, otherwise
known as the Bouncing Checks law, and of the crime of Estafa under Article 315, 2 (d).

Appellant appealed her conviction for Estafa to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court found
appellant guilty of the offense.

ISSUE: The accused could not be found guilty of estafa under Article 315, 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code
in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused employed deceit constituting false
pretenses or any fraudulent act.

HELD/RACIO DECIDENDI:
The decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 2053, is set aside and appellant Lea Sagan
Juliano is ACQUITTED of the crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d), of the Revised Penal
Code.

The elements of Estafa are as follows: (1) The offender has postdated or issued a check in payment of an
obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or issuance; (2) at the time of postdating or issuance
of said check, the offender has no funds in the bank or the funds deposited were not sufficient to cover
the amount of the check; (3) the payee has been defrauded. Damage and deceit are essential elements
of the offense and must be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction, while the false
pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to, or simultaneous with, the issuance of the bad
check. The drawer of the dishonored check is given three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to
cover the amount of the check, otherwise, a prima facie presumption of deceit arises.

In accepting the two replacement checks and surrendering the first check to appellant instead of
demanding payment under the first check on the same day that JCT’s Acting Manager informed
appellant of the dishonor of the first check, JCT led appellant to believe that she no longer had to
deposit the necessary amount to cover the first check within three days from the verbal notice of
dishonor. On July 31, 1991, appellant’s balance in her account with PCIB Isulan Branch was P78,400. It is
possible that appellant could have deposited P11,400 to make good the first check worth P89,800 if JCT
made it clear that it was demanding payment under the first check.

It would have been different if JCT accepted the replacement checks three days after appellant’s receipt
of the verbal notice of dishonor of the first check, because by then theprima facie evidence of deceit
against appellant for failure to deposit the amount necessary to cover the first check within three days
from receipt of the notice of dishonor, under Article 315, paragraph 2(d), of the Revised Penal Code,
would have been established.

Under the circumstances of this case, the fact that appellant no longer deposited the amount necessary
to cover the first check, within the required period cannot be considered prima facie evidence of deceit
against appellant. For it was due to complainant JCT’s own act of accepting the replacement checks and
surrendering the first check to appellant that appellant was no longer obliged to deposit the amount
necessary to cover the first check within three days from receipt of the verbal notice of dishonor as JCT
was no longer holding her liable for payment under the said check.

In failing to prove the element of deceit by appellant, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that appellant is guilty of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d), of the Revised Penal Code.