Recuerdo vs. People

G.R. No.
168217 June 27, 2006
JOY LEE RECUERDO, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACT:
 3 separate Criminal Informations charging Joy Lee Recuerdo of Estafa involving

18 worthless bank checks were simultaneously filed by the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan, the accusatory portions of which read, thus:
 accused Joy Lee Recuerdo, with intent to gain and by means of deceit, false
pretenses and fraudulent manifestations, and pretending to have sufficient funds
with the Unitrust, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously prepare,
draw, make and issue the following postdated checks, drawn against bankS, and
deliver the said checks to the complaining witness Yolanda G. Floro as payment
for pieces of jewelry she obtained from the said complainant, knowing fully well at
the time the checks were issued that her representations were false for she had
no sufficient funds in the said bank, so much that upon presentment of the said
checks with the said bank for encashment, the same were dishonored and
refused payment for having been drawn against an "Account Closed",
 Evidence adduced by the Prosecution tend to establish that herein private
respondent Yolanda G. Floro is engaged in the business of buying and selling of
jewelry since 1985.
 trial court rendered a Joint Decision convicting petitioner Joy Lee Recuerdo of
two counts of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal
Code.
 Petitioner appealed the decision to the CA, DENIED.
 Petitioner filed the instant petition contending that:
 Petitioner avers that she acted in good faith and exerted her utmost efforts to
confer with the private complainant to settle her obligations. Petitioner asserts
that her efforts to settle her civil obligations to the private complainant indicate
that she has no intention of duping the latter, as well as the absence of deceit on
her part. That she failed to comply with her obligations by failing to make good
the checks as they fell due does not suggest deceit, but at best only financial
hardship in fulfilling her civil obligations. Thus, there is no factual and legal basis
to convict her of estafa.
 The petitioner respectfully submits that the act of the petitioner --- OF DULY
FUNDING SOME OF THE POST-DATED CHECKS WHICH SHE ISSUED,
SPECIFICALLY THOSE WHICH BECAME DUE FIRST OR EARLIER – is and
should be considered in law as, a CIRCUMSTANCE INDICATING GOOD FAITH
AND ABSENCE OF DECEIT.8
ISSUE:
Whether or not act of petitioner indicating good faith and absence of deceit.
RULING:
NO. The guilt of petitioner was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Estafa is a felony committed by dolo (with malice). For one to be criminally liable for
estafa under paragraph (2)(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, malice and
specific intent to defraud are required.
In this case, to be criminally liable for estafa, malice and specific intent to defraud are
required. When the postdated checks issued by petitioner were dishonored by the
drawee banks and the private complainant made demands for her to pay the amounts
of the checks, she intransigently refused to pay; she insisted that she issued and
delivered the postdated checks to the private complainant after the subject pieces of
jewelry had been delivered to her. To reiterate, petitioner rejected the demands of the
private complainant to pay the amounts of the dishonored checks.
General criminal intent is an element of all crimes but malice is properly applied only to
deliberate acts done on purpose and with design. Evil intent must unite with an unlawful
act for there to be a felony. A deliberate and unlawful act gives rise to a presumption of
malice by intent. On the other hand, specific intent is a definite and actual purpose to
accomplish some particular thing.
The general criminal intent is presumed from the criminal act and in the absence of any
general intent is relied upon as a defense, such absence must be proved by the
accused. Generally, a specific intent is not presumed. Its existence, as a matter of fact,
must be proved by the State just as any other essential element. This may be shown,
however, by the nature of the act, the circumstances under which it was committed, the
means employed and the motive of the accused.17
The law provides that, in estafa, prima facie evidence of deceit is established upon
proof that the drawer of the check failed to deposit the amount necessary to cover his
check within three (3) days from receipt of the notice of dishonor for lack or insufficiency
of funds. A prima facie evidence need not be rebutted by a preponderance of evidence,
nor by evidence of greater weight. The evidence of the accused which equalizes the
weight of the People’s evidence or puts the case in equipoise is sufficient. As a result,
the People will have to go forward with the proof. Should it happen that, at the trial the
weight of evidence is equally balanced or at equilibrium and the presumption operates
against the People who has the burden of proof, it cannot prevail. 18
There can be no estafa if the accused acted in good faith because good faith negates
malice and deceit.19
In the present case, the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt of the
guilt of the petitioner of the crime charged. The trial court gave credence and probative
weight to the evidence of the People and disbelieved that proferred by the petitioner.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Recuerdo vs. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recuerdo vs. People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recuerdo vs. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

168217 June 27, 2006

JOY LEE RECUERDO, Petitioner,

 3 separate Criminal Informations charging Joy Lee Recuerdo of Estafa involving

NO. The guilt of petitioner was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

You might also like