Garcia vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
144785, Sept. 11, 2003
Nature: Appeal from the decision of the Court of
Appeals affirming in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court, which found
petitioner Yolanda Garcia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
estafa, and sentenced her to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from
six (6) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor, to indemnify the complainant in the amount of P87,000.00, and to pay the
costs.
Keywords: Estafa, vegetable dealer, bouncing
cheques,
Summary: For more than a
year, petitioner had been buying assorted vegetables from Dolores Apolonio in
Divisoria, Manila. Petitioner always paid in cash. However, in May 1995,
petitioner thrice bought vegetables from Apolonio using three checks: one
postdated June 20, 1995 for P28,000.00, drawn by her husband, Manuel Garcia;
the second postdated July 25, 1995 for P34,000.00, drawn by her daughter Gigi
Garcia; and the third postdated August 15, 1995 for P25,000.00, drawn by her
nephew Jose Nadongga Jr. When the three checks were presented for payment, they
were all dishonored for insufficiency of funds.
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.
Facts: That on or about and during the period
comprised between June 20, 1995, and August 15, 1995, inclusive, in the City of
Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously defraud one DOLORES S. APOLONIO in the following manner, to
wit: the said accused by means of false manifestations and fraudulent
representations which she made to said DOLORES S. APOLONIO to the effect that
accused has three (3) checks which according to her have sufficient funds and
if encashed, the same will not be dishonored; and by means of other deceits of
similar import, induced and succeeded in inducing the said DOLORES S. APOLONIO
to accept the following checks:
Name of Bank Check
No. Amount Date Payable to
Phil Natl Bank 046884
P28,000.00 6-20-95 Cash
-do- 047416 34,000.00
8-15-95 -do-
Pilipinas Bank 60042087 25,000.00 7-25-95 Garcia
Vegetable Dealer
as payments of
assorted vegetables which accused purchased and received from said DOLORES S.
APOLONIO in the total amount of P87,000.00, said accused knowing fully well
that the said manifestations and representations were all false and untrue as
said checks when presented to the bank for payment were all dishonored for the
reason Drawn Against Insufficient Funds, and were made solely for the purpose
of obtaining, as in fact she did obtain assorted vegetables in the amount of
P87,000.00; which once in her possession and with intent to defraud, she
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted
the said assorted vegetables or the value thereof to her own personal use and
benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the aforesaid amount
of P87,000.00, Philippine Currency.
Petitioner pleaded
not guilty.
Issue: WON Petitioner’s constitutional right
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her was
violated because, although she was charged with estafa under Article 315,
Section 2[a], as amended, which penalizes false manifestations or fraudulent
representations in defraudation of another, she was instead convicted of estafa
under Article 315, Section 2[d] which penalizes the issuance of postdated
checks that were not funded or were insufficiently funded.
Held: NO.
Ratio: Section 14(2) of
Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that an accused has the right to
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Indeed,
Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that
the acts and omissions complained of as constituting the offense must be
alleged in the Information. Section 8 thereof provides that the Information
shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute and aver the
acts or omissions constituting the offense. The real nature of the crime
charged is determined by the facts alleged in the Information and not by the
title or designation of the offense contained in the caption of the
Information. It is fundamental that every element of which the offense is
comprised must be alleged in the Information. What facts and circumstances are
necessary to be alleged in the Information must be determined by reference to
the definition and essential elements of the specific crimes.
Article 315,
paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code provides that swindling or estafa by
false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud is committed by using fictitious name, or falsely
pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions, or by other similar deceits. The
elements of estafa under this penal provision are: (1) the accused defrauded
another by means of deceit; and (2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to the offended party or third party.
A careful reading of
the Information clearly shows that petitioner was charged with estafa under
Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information
alleged that petitioner by means of false manifestations and fraudulent
representations x x x to the effect that accused has three checks which
according to her have sufficient funds and if encashed the same will not be
dishonored; x x x induced x x x Dolores S. Apolonio to accept the following
checks x x x as payment of assorted vegetables x x x in the total amount of
P87,000.00.
There is, however, no
basis for petitioner to conclude that she was convicted for estafa under
Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code which penalizes any
person who shall defraud another by postdating or issuing a check or issuing a
check in payment of an obligation when the offender has no funds in the bank or
his funds deposited therein are not sufficient to cover the amount of check.
The elements of this form of estafa are: (1) postdating or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) lack
or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee
thereof.
While the
typographical error in the dispositive portion of the trial courts decision did
not help in clearing this matter by saying that, x x x the Court finds the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under Art. 315,
Sec. 2(2) of the Revised Penal Code, x x x,[9] the body of the trial courts
decision clearly discusses the elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph
2(a), thus:
The elements of
estafa are (1) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by
means of deceit; and (2) that the damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to the offended party.
In other words,
whether petitioner was charged under either paragraph 2(a) or 2(d) of Article
315 of the Revised Penal Code, she would still be guilty of estafa because
damage and deceit, which are essential elements of the offense, have been
established with satisfactory proof. The fraudulent act was committed prior to
or simultaneous with the issuance of the bad check. The guarantee and the
simultaneous delivery of the checks by petitioner were the enticement and the
efficient cause of the defraudation committed against Apolonio who suffered
damage amounting to P87,000.00 as a result of the fraud committed by petitioner
in paying him underfunded checks drawn by three different persons.
Fraud, in its general
sense, is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all
acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty,
trust, or confidences justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by
which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another. It is a
generic term embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can device,
and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another
by false suggestions or by suppression of truth and includes all surprise,
trick, cunning, dissembling and any unfair way by which another is cheated.
Deceit is a specie of fraud.
In fact, the Court of
Appeals saw through petitioners deceit when it observed, thus:
Appellants scheme is
obvious. She wanted to get vegetables from Apolonio for free. In order to
escape from any criminal liability, she asked her husband, daughter and nephew
to issue the bouncing checks. And certainly, the scheme was deceitful. The
appellant could not have been unaware of the insufficient funds of her
relatives to support the checks they issued but she tendered the checks to
Apolonio with the assurance that they were funded. Appellant could have exerted
efforts to settle her account upon notice of the dishonored checks if she were
in good faith.
Ruling: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing,
the Court hereby AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the decision of the trial court
finding Yolanda Garcia guilty of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2[a] of
the Revised Penal Code, and sentencing her to suffer the indeterminate penalty
of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to
fourteen (14) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to indemnify the
complainant in the amount of P87,000.00. With costs.
