PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARLENE D. MENDOZA AND GERARDO L. MENDOZA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, J.:
dated 13 March 2012 (“assailed Decision”) of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 165, Marikina City (“RTC”) in Criminal Case No. 2007-9586-MK,
entitled “People of the Philippines v. Arlene D. Mendoza and Gerardo L. Mendoza,”
which found Arlene D. Mendoza (“accused-appellant Arlene”) and Gerardo
L. Mendoza (“accused-appellant Gerardo”) guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Estafa.
THE FACTS
In the Information,[2]
the two accused-appellants were charged for the crime of Estafa under
Article 315, paragraph 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code for defrauding
Angelita L. Baltazar (“private complainant Angelita”) in the amount of
P100,000.00. The Information read:
The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses Spouses ARLENE
D. MENDOZA and GERARDO L. MENDOZA, of the crime of ESTAFA (under Art.
315, par. 2 (D) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by P.D. 818,
committed as follows:That on or about the 2nd day of February 2005, in the
City of Marikina, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating
together and mutually helping and assisting one another, with deliberate
intent to defraud one Angelita L. Baltazar, and by means of deceit,
false pretenses and fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously
with the commission of fraud, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously make, draw and issue to ANGELITA L. BALTAZAR the
following check, to wit:
BANK/CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT PB Com 2000083501 6-20-05 Php50,000.00 PB Com 2000083502 6-27-05 Php50,000.00 in the total amount of P100,000.00, simultaneously in exchange
for cash to herein complainant ANGELITA L. BALTAZAR said accused well
knowing at the time of issue they did not have sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank for payment in full of the face amount of
said checks upon its presentment which checks when presented for payment
was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason ”ACCOUNT
CLOSED” and despite repeated demands to make good the said checks,
failed and refused to deposit the amount necessary to cover the
aforesaid checks or pay the value thereof, within three (3) banking days
after receiving notice, to the damage and prejudice of, ANGELITA L.
BALTAZAR in the aforementioned amount of P100,000.00.CONTRARY TO LAW.
Marikina City, August 8, 2007.
At the arraignment, the two accused-appellants, assisted by
counsel, pleaded not guilty to the crime as charged in the Information.[3]
On 17 November 2008, the RTC terminated pre-trial.[4]
Thereafter, the RTC conducted trial.
The Prosecution presented as witnesses the following persons: private
complainant Angelita; Fernando San Diego (“San Diego”); and Relina S.
Taberna (“Taberna”).
The evidence of the Prosecution is
summarized thus: on 2 February 2005, the two accused-appellants who are
husband and wife, went to the house of private complainant Angelita to
rediscount two checks (PBCOM Check No. 2000083501 dated 20 June 2005,
and PBCOM Check No. 200083502 dated 27 June 2005), issued by
accused-appellant Arlene (only), both payable to the order of private
complainant Angelita, with value of P50,000.00 each; upon assurance by
the two accused-appellants that the two subject checks would be
sufficiently funded upon their maturity, private complainant in exchange
gave the two accused-appellants the check dated 2 February 2005,
payable to cash, in the amount of P100,000.00, and accused-appellants
encashed this check at Angelita’s depository bank; on 15 July 2005,
private complainant Angelita deposited the two checks to her bank
account at Banco Filipino, however, when the checks were presented to
PBCOM for payment, they were dishonored because the account was already
closed; private complainant Angelita, through her lawyer, sent the
accused-appellants the letter dated 13 September 2005,[5]
making a demand to pay the value of the two subject checks;
accused-appellants did not pay; private complainant Angelita filed the
case for estafa against the two accused-appellants.
The Defense presented accused-appellant Arlene as witness.
The evidence of the Defense is summarized thus: accused-appellants, who
are husband and wife, approached the private complainant Angelita to
borrow money, and not to rediscount any checks; accused-appellants have
no checking account, and in compliance with private complainant
Angelita’s requirement, accused-appellant Arlene opened a checking
account in her name at PBCOM Marikina Branch; private complainant
Angelita released the loan amount to accused-appellants by issuing a
check, and then private complainant Angelita required accused-appellants
to issue the two subject checks in exchange for her check representing
the loan; while the signatures appearing on the two checks are the
signatures of accused-appellant Arlene, the dates inscribed on the face
of the two subject checks, are not in accused-appellant Arlene’s
handwriting; when private complainant Angelita deposited the two subject
checks, the bank dishonored them; when accused-appellants received the
letter of private complainant Angelita making a demand to pay,
accused-appellants asked that private complainant Angelita give them two
months within which to pay the value of the dishonored checks.
On 13 March 2012, the RTC rendered the assailed Decision,[6]
which found accused-appellants Arlene and Gerardo guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa. The dispositive portion of the
Decision read:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds both
accused ARLENE D. MENDOZA and GERARDO L. MENDOZA guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged and are hereby sentenced each to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from eight (8) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twenty-seven (27) years of
reclusion perpetua as maximum, with all the accessory penalties provided
for under the Revised Penal Code. The surety bonds posted by both
accused in this case are hereby cancelled and forfeited in favor of the
government.Both accused are likewise ordered to pay complainant Angelita L.
Baltazar the amount of Php100,000.00 corresponding to value of the
subject checks, with interest thereon at the legal rate from the time
they were drawn, until fully paid.SO ORDERED.[7]
On 14 March 2012, the two accused-appellants filed Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.[8]
In the Order dated 17 April 2012, the RTC partially granted the Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.[9] The dispositive portion of the Order read:
WHEREFORE, the Urgent Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY
GRANTED. The award of P100,000.00 corresponding to the value of the
subject checks including its interests, the same having been previously
awarded to the private complainant in the BP 22 cases before MTC 76,
Marikina City is hereby DELETED from the Decision dated March 13, 2012.
The rest of the dispositive portion in the same Decision however, STAY
and MAINTAIN (sic).
On 23 April 2012, the two accused-appellants filed the Notice of Appeal.[10] In the Order[11] dated 24 April 2012, the RTC gave due course to the Notice of Appeal, and ordered the elevation of the Records to this Court.
On 3 October 2012, the two accused-appellants filed Accused-Appellants’ Brief,[12] assigning a lone error, thus:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
OF THE CRIME OF ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 315, PAR. 2 (D) OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 818 BY FINDING THAT
FRAUD AND/OR DECEIT ATTENDED THE ISSUANCE OF THE POSTDATED CHECKS.
The issue is whether there is proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict the two accused-appellants of the crime of Estafa.
The Accused-Appellants’ Brief answers in the negative. There is no
proof beyond reasonable doubt that the two accused-appellants are guilty
of the crime of estafa. The Brief thrusts: the two accused-appellants
do not deny having issued the two subject checks; the evidence shows
that accused-appellant Arlene opened the bank account in her name, and
issued the subject checks, on the same date that she went to the private
complainant Angelita to avail of the loan; at the time
accused-appellants issued subject checks, private complainant Angelita
knew that the checks were not funded; there was no rediscounting of the
checks, but rather, the accused-appellants issued the subject checks to
comply with a requirement for the release of the loan, and to guarantee
future payment of the loan; the transaction between the parties was a
loan because there was an interest of 3.5% per month; the dates written
on the face of the subject checks were not written in accused-appellant
Arlene’s handwriting; the Prosecution failed to prove the first and
third elements of the crime as charged (i.e., it was the private
complainant Angelita who required the accused-appellants to open the
bank account, thus the checks were issued only as evidence of
indebtedness or proof of an obligation; there was no deceit on the part
of the accused-appellants, because they agreed with the private
complainant Angelita at the time of the issuance and postdating of the
checks, that the same shall not be encashed or presented to the bank).
On 4 February 2013, the People filed Appellee’s Brief.[13]
It answers in the affirmative. The Prosecution proved the element of
fraud or deceit, beyond reasonable doubt. The Brief parries: all the
elements of estafa are present in this case (i.e., accused-appellants
issued to private complainant Angelita the subject checks, each one with
the face value of P50,000.00, or a total of P100,000.00, at private
complainant Angelita’s house, in exchange for the cash equivalent of the
two checks; when private complainant Angelita attempted to encash the
two subject checks, the drawee bank dishonored both checks for the
reason “account closed;” accused-appellants did not comply with the
letters sent to them by private complainant Angelita, requiring payment
of the face value of the checks, nor did they deposit the amount
necessary to cover the subject checks); the fact that it was private
complainant Angelita who instructed accused-appellants to open the
checking account with PBCOM on the same date that accused-appellants
availed of the loan, and the fact that the subject checks were undated,
do not sufficiently disprove that there was no rediscounting of the
checks.
On 6 March 2013, the accused-appellants filed the Appellants’ Reply Brief,[14] reiterating the arguments in the Accused-Appellants’ Brief.
On 10 September 2013, the accused-appellants filed Motion for Bail. In the Resolution[15] dated 28 January 2014, this Court granted the Motion for Bail, and allowed the two accused-appellants to post cash bail.
COURT’S RULING
The Court rules in the affirmative with respect to
accused-appellant Arlene. There is proof beyond reasonable doubt that
she is guilty of the crime of Estafa. However, we acquit
accused-appellant Gerardo, absent proof of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
Article 315, paragraph 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code is relevant. It provides:
Article. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud
another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished
by:x x x
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission
of the fraud:x x x
d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an
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.
The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary
to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the
bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for
lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit
constituting false pretenses or fraudulent act.x x x
The elements constituting the crime of Estafa as defined
in Article 315, paragraph 2 (d), above quoted, are: (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.[16]
As against accused-appellant Arlene, the Prosecution proved all the above-quoted elements of estafa beyond reasonable doubt.
The first element was present. Accused-appellant Arlene issued the two
subject checks to private complainant Angelita to pay an obligation
existing on the date of the issuance of the two subject checks. While
the accused-appellants consistently admit (before the RTC, and before
this Court on appeal as apparent in the Accused-Appellant’s Brief[17]) that the two of them issued the subject checks,[18]
only accused-appellant Arlene’s signatures appear as drawer of the
subject checks. On 2 February 2005, accused-appellants received
P100,000.00 from private complainant Angelita, and thereafter
accused-appellant Arlene issued the two subject checks, both postdated (i.e.,
PBCOM Check No. 2000083501 dated 20 June 2005, and PBCOM Check No.
2000083502 dated 27 June 2005), with total value of P100,000.00. Private
complainant Angelita would not have given the two accused-appellants
the P100,000.00, which was equivalent to the face value of the two
subject checks, if accused-appellant Arlene did not issue and deliver to
her the two subject checks.
The second element was present. On the date accused-appellant Arlene issued the checks, she had no funds in the bank.
The drawee bank dishonored the two subject checks for the reason of
“account closed,” as evidenced by the rubber marking appearing on the
dorsal portion of the subject checks[19]
and per the Certification dated 28 September 2005 issued by PBCOM.
Jurisprudence has it that the dishonor of checks on the ground of
“account closed,” is indicative of the element of lack or insufficiency
of funds.[20] In this case,
accused-appellant Arlene did not adduce evidence to prove that on the
dates she issued the checks, they had funds in the drawee bank.
The third element was present. The accused-appellant Arlene had
defrauded the private complainant Angelita, and private complainant
Angelita suffered damage. Private complainant Angelita parted with her
money because she relied on the fraudulent representations of
accused-appellant Arlene when she issued the subject checks. As a result
of fraudulent representation by accused-appellant Arlene, private
complainant Angelita suffered damage in the amount of P100,000.00.
Accused-appellants argue that there was no deceit employed when
accused-appellant Arlene issued the subject checks to private
complainant Angelita, allegedly because private complainant Angelita
knew all along that the checks were merely evidence of indebtedness, and
that private complainant Angelita was aware that at the time of the
issuance of the checks, they were not funded, and that accused-appellant
Arlene issued the subject checks only to guarantee future payment.
We do not agree.
In this case, it was evident that private complainant Angelita would
not have given her personal check with face value of P100,000.00 to
accused-appellants if accused-appellant Arlene did not issue and deliver
to her the two subject checks. Accused-appellant Arlene issued the
subject checks to private complainant Angelita, to induce private
complainant Angelita to part with her P100,000.00. When private
complainant Angelita attempted to encash the subject checks, the drawee
bank dishonored them because the account was already closed. Private
complainant Angelita wrote accused-appellants the letter dated 13
September 2005 (which accused-appellant Arlene received) informing the
accused-appellants that the drawee bank had dishonored the two checks,
and requiring them to settle their obligation. Accused-appellants did
not pay the face value of the checks, and did not deposit in the bank
the amount necessary to cover the checks. This gave rise to a prima facie
evidence of deceit, which is an element of the crime of estafa,
constituting false pretense or fraudulent act as stated in the second
sentence of paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
Notably, the Defense did not rebut the prima facie presumption of deceit. Consequently, the presumption stands.
Accused-appellants also assert that it was private complainant
Angelita who instructed accused-appellants to open the checking account
with PBCOM, and that accused-appellant Arlene was not the one who wrote
the date of subject checks, because the dates were not in
accused-appellant Arlene’s handwriting.
We do not agree.
Since accused-appellants assert that the accused-appellant Arlene did
not write the dates on the subject checks, it was incumbent upon them to
prove such fact. It is a basic principle in our rules on evidence that
he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving the truth thereof. It
must also be stressed that the evidence to prove this fact must be
clear, positive, and convincing.[21]
However, aside from the bare allegation, no proof was adduced in this
regard. Consequently, it remains that accused-appellant Arlene wrote the
entirety of the subject checks, including the dates appearing on them.
The accused-appellant Gerardo must be acquitted. Accused-appellant
Gerardo did not issue the subject checks. While the Information charged
conspiracy between the two accused-appellants in the commission of the
crimes, and there was proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict
accused-appellant Arlene for issuing the two subject checks, we cannot
convict accused-appellant Gerardo as conspirator to the crime. The
prosecution failed to discharge its burden of establishing conspiracy
between accused-appellant Arlene and accused-appellant Gerardo.
The Decision of the RTC convicted accused-appellant Gerardo because of
the fact that his signatures appear on the back of the subject checks.
However nothing else was shown to indicate any overt act on the part of
accused-appellant Gerardo that would even suggest that he had a hand in
dealing with private complainant Angelita. It was accused-appellant
Arlene alone, who issued and negotiated the subject checks as payment
for the obligation, and the subject checks were all drawn against
accused-appellant Arlene’s personal bank account. Accused-appellant
Gerardo’s signatures appearing at the back of the subject checks, and
his presence when his wife accused-appellant Arlene issued the subject
checks, did not establish conspiracy, absent any evidence that he, by an
act or series of acts, participated in the commission of fraud to the
damage of the private complainant Angelita.
In the case of Timbal v. People[22]
with the same facts (where the two accused were also husband and wife),
the Supreme Court ruled that the mere presence of the accused husband
when the accused wife issued the check, would not by itself establish
conspiracy, absent any evidence that he, by an act or series of acts,
participated in the commission of fraud to the damage of the
complainant. While conspiracy need not be established by direct
evidence, it is, nonetheless, required that it be proved by clear and
convincing evidence[23] by showing a series of acts done by each of the accused in concert and in pursuance of the common unlawful purpose.[24]
The degree of proof required to establish conspiracy, like the crime
itself, is nothing less than proof beyond reasonable doubt.[25]
Thus, absent proof beyond reasonable doubt of conspiracy between the
co-accused husband and wife, only the accused wife who was the lone
issuer of the check, was convicted.
In criminal cases, conviction must rest on a moral certainty of guilt.[26]
The burden of proof is upon the prosecution to establish each and every
element of the crime and that it is the accused who has been
responsible for its commission or that he has conspired with the
malefactor.
As to the penalty: under Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 818, if the amount of
the fraud exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty shall be as follows:
Ist. The penalty of reclusion temporal if the
amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000
pesos; and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided
in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one
year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may
be imposed shall not exceed thirty years. In such cases, and in
connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed under the
Revised Penal Code, the penalty shall be termed reclusion perpetua.
The amount misappropriated in this case is P100,000.00. The
minimum term of accused-appellant Arlene’s indeterminate sentence, being
next lower in degree to that prescribed in the statute, is prision mayor.
The maximum term of accused-appellant Arlene’s indeterminate sentence,
on the other hand, should be within the maximum period of reclusion perpetua, which is 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years, plus 1 year for each additional P10,000.[27] Thus, the proper penalty to be imposed on accused-appellant Arlene is 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor, to 24 years 4 months and 1 day of reclusion perpetua.
We MODIFY the Decision dated 13 March 2012 of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 165, Marikina City, in Criminal Case
No. 2007-9586-MK, thus: 1) we find the accused-appellant Arlene Mendoza GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa, and sentence her to imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor, to 24 years 4 months and 1 day of reclusion perpetua; 2) we ACQUIT accused-appellant Gerardo Mendoza absent proof beyond reasonable doubt, and ORDER his immediate release, provided there are no other causes for his further detention.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Veloso, (Chairperson) and Lantion, JJ., concur.
[1] Records, p. 262.
[2] Records, p. 1.
[3] Records, p. 64.
[4] Records, p. 93.
[5] Exhibits D, Records, p. 201.
[6] Records, p. 262.
[7] Records, pp. 276-277.
[8] Records, p. 286.
[9] Records, p. 344.
[10] Records, p. 345.
[11] Records, p. 348.
[12] CA, Rollo, p. 42.
[13] CA, Rollo, p. 119.
[14] C.A. Rollo, p. 135.
[15] C.A. Rollo, p. 164.
[16] Lopez v. People,
G.R. No. 166810, 26 June 2008, citing People v. Juliano, G.R. No.
134120, 17 January 2005; People v. Holzer, G.R. No. 132323, 20 July
2000; People v. Chua, G.R. No. 130632, 28 September 1999; and People v.
Ojeda, G.R. Nos. 104238-58, 3 June 2004.
[17] CA Rollo, p. 42, at p. 49.
[18] Exhibits B and C, Records, p. 199-200.
[19] Exhibits B-2 and C-2, Records, p. 199-200.
[20] People v. Booc, G.R. No. 143959, 19 February 2009; People v. Montaner, G.R. No. 184053, 31 August 2011.
[21] Tamayo v. People,
G.R. No. 174698, 28 July 2008, citing Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Southeast
Mindanao Gold Mining Corp., G.R No. 152613 No. 152628, 23 June 2006;
Bejoc v. Cabreros, G.R. No. 145849, 22 July 2005; Joson v. Mendoza, G.R.
No. 144071, 25 August 2005.
[22] Timbal v. People, G.R. No. 136487, 14 December 2001.
[23] Id, citing Bayan vs. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 844.
[24] Id, citing People vs. Quiñones, 183 SCRA 747.
[25] Id, citing People vs. Camaddo, 217 SCRA 162.
[26] Id, citing People vs. Quindipan, 253 SCRA 421.
[27] People v. Booc, supra
at Note 20, citing Firaza v. People, G.R. No. 154721, 22 March 2007;
Perez v. People, G.R. No. 150443, 20 January 2006; People v. Gabres,
G.R. Nos. 118950-54, 6 February 1997; People v. Saley, 353 Phil. 897
(1998); Ong v. Court of Appeals, 449 Phil. 691 (2003).