AMANDO JUAQUICO, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Amando Juaquico versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Amando Juaquico versus People of the Philippines, a criminal case for estafa under the second paragraph, letter d of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, the provision on swindling by postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation without sufficient funds. Juaquico was accused of defrauding Robert Chan, a store owner in Tondo, Manila, by endorsing to him ten checks drawn by another person, which were all dishonored for insufficiency of funds. The case matters because the Supreme Court acquitted him, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the third element of the offense, namely, that the accused had guilty knowledge that the drawer had no funds in the bank when he endorsed the checks. It is a leading reminder that deceit, not mere damage, is the heart of estafa by bad check.

Procedural History

The case began in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 51. After trial, the court rendered judgment on August 16, 2013, finding Juaquico guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2, letter d of the Revised Penal Code. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from four years and two months of prision correccional as minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum, and ordered to pay Robert Chan 329,000 pesos as actual damages.

Juaquico appealed to the Court of Appeals. On October 14, 2015, the Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. He moved for reconsideration, but the Court of Appeals denied the motion in a Resolution dated March 14, 2016.

Juaquico then elevated the case to the Supreme Court through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the challenged decision, acquitted him on the ground of reasonable doubt, but held him civilly liable.

Facts

In 1991, Amando Juaquico went to the store of Robert Chan in Juan Luna, Tondo, Manila, and asked Chan to exchange for cash ten checks issued by Home Bankers Trust. The checks were dated from October 3, 1991 to November 24, 1991, and carried amounts ranging from 9,000 pesos to 60,000 pesos. Chan knew Juaquico both as a customer and as his godson, and so he accommodated the request.

On their maturity dates, however, all the checks were returned for insufficiency of funds. Chan immediately sent a demand letter dated October 17, 1991, but Juaquico ignored it. Chan was constrained to file the criminal case.

For his defense, Juaquico testified that he was engaged in the embroidery business and had purchased threads and accessories from Chan since 1977. Starting 1980, he paid in checks issued to him by his customers. He claimed that he did not receive cash from Chan in exchange for the checks he endorsed. According to him, the subject checks were issued to him by a Korean customer named Ho Myong Ham, and he merely indorsed them to Chan as payment for materials. When he learned that the checks bounced, he searched for Ham, but his efforts were futile because she had already left the country.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved all the elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2, letter d of the Revised Penal Code, particularly the element of guilty knowledge on the part of the accused that the drawer had no funds in the bank.
• Whether or not the accused may be held civilly liable despite his acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

Article 315, paragraph 2, letter d of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 4885, provides:

Article 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow x x x: x 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 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 pretense or fraudulent act.

This provision defines the very offense charged and supplies the elements the prosecution must establish, including the deceit that the Court found wanting in this case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in favor of Juaquico. The elements of the offense are: first, the postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; second, the lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and third, that the payee was not informed by the offender and the payee did not know that the offender had no funds or insufficient funds. As to the third element, the Court held that the prosecution must prove that the accused had guilty knowledge of the fact that the drawer of the check had no funds in the bank at the time the accused indorsed the same.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove this element. There was no showing whatsoever that Juaquico had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds of the checks he endorsed. The checks were issued and paid to him by a certain Ham, and upon notice that they were dishonored, he immediately searched for her, but she had already left the country.

The Court also stressed that deceit and damage are essential elements of the offense and must be established with satisfactory proof. Here, the sixteen-year business relationship between Chan and Juaquico, coupled with Chan's practice of accepting checks of Juaquico's clients even if he did not personally know them, negated the necessity of any assurance that the checks would be sufficiently funded upon maturity. Chan was not deceived; he accepted the checks out of a standard procedure developed over the years.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that the lack of criminal liability does not absolve Juaquico from civil liability. Records showed that he was able to obtain 329,000 pesos from Chan through the checks he endorsed. Consequently, the Court found him civilly liable for that amount, plus legal interest at twelve percent per annum from October 17, 1991, and interest of six percent per annum from July 1, 2013 until full satisfaction, pursuant to Nacar versus Gallery Frames and the resolution of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain that in estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2, letter d of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must prove guilty knowledge on the part of the accused that the drawer of the check had no funds in the bank at the time the accused indorsed the check. Deceit and damage are essential elements of the offense and must be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. The failure to prove deceit results in acquittal, but the accused remains civilly liable for the amount he obtained, since acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt does not extinguish the civil obligation arising from the transaction.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, acquitted Amando Juaquico of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt, but ordered him to pay Robert Chan 329,000 pesos as actual damages, plus legal interest at twelve percent per annum from October 17, 1991, and six percent per annum from July 1, 2013 until full satisfaction.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that in estafa by bad check, guilty knowledge of insufficient funds must be proved, and without deceit there is no crime, though civil liability survives. Examiners like to use this case to test the elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2, letter d, and the rule that acquittal on reasonable doubt does not bar recovery of civil damages.