### Facts:
1. **Introduction of the Parties**: In April 2011, Esther P. Abalos, who presented herself as “Vicenta Abalos,” accompanied by Christine Molina, approached Elaine D. Sembrano at her Manulife office in Baguio City. Abalos offered two EastWest Bank checks for rediscounting to Sembrano.
2. **The Checks and the Transaction**: The checks were signed in Sembrano’s office by Abalos:
– Check No. 0370031 dated May 3, 2011 for P17,500.00
– Check No. 0370032 dated June 1, 2011 for P250,000.00
Sembrano, assured of the checks’ legitimacy by Abalos and Molina, provided P250,000.00 less 7% interest.
3. **Discovery of Deceit**: Sembrano later found out from friends that Abalos’s real name was Esther, not “Vicenta.” Upon trying to cash the checks on due dates, Sembrano discovered that the checks were dishonored.
4. **Collection Attempts and Filing of Complaint**: Sembrano used Benguet Credit Collectors to recover the amount, to no avail. Despite receiving a demand letter on October 23, 2011, Abalos made empty promises to pay. Consequently, Sembrano filed a complaint for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
**Procedural Posture**:
1. **Trial Court Decision (RTC)**: On November 29, 2012, the RTC found Abalos guilty, sentencing her to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Abalos was also ordered to pay Sembrano P232,500.00 in actual damages.
2. **Court of Appeals Decision (CA)**: The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision on May 20, 2015, modifying the interest rate on the damages to 6% per annum from the final judgment until fully paid. Dissatisfied, Abalos appealed to the Supreme Court.
### Issues:
1. **Whether the transaction constituted estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code.
2. **Whether all the elements of estafa were present, particularly deceit and/or false pretenses.
3. **Whether the alleged inconsistencies in Sembrano’s testimony were material enough to affect the conviction.
4. **Determination of the proper penalty for the offense under the relevant laws and amendments.
### Court’s Decision:
1. **Elements of Estafa**: The Court affirmed that all elements for estafa were established.
– **Issuance of the Check**: Abalos issued checks as payment for an obligation.
– **Insufficient Funds**: The checks were dishonored due to “account closed.”
– **Knowledge of Insufficient Funds**: Abalos knew the checks were unfunded, failing to inform Sembrano.
– **Damage**: Sembrano parted with P232,500.00 due to Abalos’s deceit.
2. **Deceit and False Pretenses**:
– **Deception**: Abalos’s misrepresentation of her identity (as “Vicenta Abalos”) and the sufficiency of funds in the checks constituted deceit.
– **Material Inducement**: Sembrano was induced to part with the money, relying on the assurances falsely presented.
3. **Inconsistencies in Testimony**:
– **Immaterality of Discrepancy**: The Court held that the inconsistency between Sembrano’s affidavit and in-court testimony (checks used as collaterals) did not affect the core elements of estafa.
4. **Penalty Imposition**:
– **Comparison of Penalties (RPC vs. R.A. No. 10951)**: The Court compared the penalties under the RPC and the amended penalties under R.A. No. 10951, deciding to maintain the penalty under the RPC as more beneficial due to a lower minimum term.
– **Final Sentence**: Abalos was sentenced to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
– **Interest Modification**: The Court modified the interest on the damages, setting them at 12% per annum from the filing of the information until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013, until the finality of the decision, with the total amount accruing interest at 6% per annum until fully paid.
### Doctrine:
– **Prima Facie Evidence of Deceit**: The failure to fund a check within three days from receipt of a notice of dishonor constitutes prima facie evidence of deceit.
– **Retroactivity Principle in Penal Laws**: The Indeterminate Sentence Law aims to rehabilitate offenders through flexible sentencing beneficial to the accused whenever applicable.
– **Material Inducement and Deceit in Estafa**: For estafa, deceit must be the inducement for the victim to part with property/money.
### Class Notes:
– **Estafa Elements**: Issuance of check, insufficient funds, knowledge of insufficiency, resulting damage.
– **Article 315, RPC**: Defines penalties for swindling based on fraud amount and imposes incremental penalties for amounts exceeding P22,000.
– **Article 65, RPC**: Guidelines for dividing penalties into equal periods.
– **Indeterminate Sentence Law**: Ensures reformation by allowing parole eligibility based on an indeterminate sentence.
### Historical Background:
– **Economic Crimes**: The case reflects the ongoing efforts to address economic crimes like estafa in the post-Marcos era in the Philippines, emphasizing the development of legal frameworks to secure financial transactions and safeguard against fraud.
– **Statutory Evolution**: Reflects modernization of penal provisions through R.A. No. 10951 to address inflation and improve clarity in sentencing guidelines.
This case reinforces the importance of integrity and transparency in financial transactions and exemplifies the judicial system’s adaptability in balancing punitive measures with rehabilitative goals.
Leave a Reply