Crim 2 Cases

G.R. No. 127327 LIBERATA AMBITO, BASILIO AMBITO, and CRISANTO AMBITO, petitioners Vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS, respondent Ponente: Justice Leonardo- De Castro Facts: Petitioners were charged of multiple Estafa particularly violations of B.P. 22 or the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law and falsification of public documents. They were owners of few business establishments located in Iloilo which includes two rural banks and a commercial establishment. It was stated that the petitioners transacted with Pacific Star Inc. and paid in cash, checks and certificates of time deposits to ordered machineries. However the checks that were issued by petitioner spouse were all dishonored due to lack of funds. With regards to the certificates of time deposits, two witnesses claimed that they were employees of the spouses in their banks and that they were forced to sign blank documents. In the course of time, both banks became insolvent and the Central Bank had to inspect the records and have the banks be liquidated. It was then that it was found out that no records indicated that Pacific Star Inc was given certificates of time deposits. Pacific star Inc, filed a case against petitioners in which both the RTC and the Court of Appeals decided in favor of Pacific Star. Issue: 1. 2. Held: 1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals made a reversible error in finding the petitioners guilty violating B.P. 22 or the Anti- Bouncing Checks Law? Whether or not the petitioner spouses could be held liable for the Estafa through falsification of public documents? The Supreme Court held that the petition was partly meritorious. The elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 are: (1) making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply on account or for value; (2) knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making or issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is not the nonpayment of an obligation which the law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order. Thus, the mere act of issuing a worthless check whether as a deposit, as a guarantee or even as evidence of pre-existing debt is malum prohibitum. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt of the spouses beyond reasonable ground on the seven counts of violation of BP 22. Under B.P. Blg. 22, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused issued a check that was subsequently dishonored. It must also establish that the accused was actually notified that the check was dishonored, and that he or she failed, within five (5) banking days from receipt of the notice, to pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon or to make arrangement for its payment. Absent proof that the accused received such notice, a prosecution for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law cannot prosper. In the case at bar, there is nothing in the records that would indicate that co-petitioner Basilio Ambito was given any notice of dishonor by PSI or by Manila Bank, the drawee bank, when the subject checks were dishonored for insufficiency of funds upon presentment for payment. In fact, all that the OSG can aver regarding this matter is that co-petitioner Basilio Ambito had been notified of the fact of dishonor since PSI filed a collection case against petitioners more than three (3) years before the same filed the criminal cases before this Court. 2. The Supreme Court held that the decision of the Court of Appeals was correct in convicting petitioners of Estafa. The elements of Estafa by means of deceit, whether committed by false pretenses or concealment, are the following (a)
that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means. (b) That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud. (c) That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means. (d) That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. In the prosecution for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC, it is indispensable that the element of deceit, consisting in the false statement or fraudulent representation of the accused, be made prior to, or at least simultaneously with, the delivery of the thing by the complainant. The false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, it being essential that such false statement or representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induces the offended party to part with his money. In the absence of such requisite, any subsequent act of the accused, however fraudulent and suspicious it might appear, cannot serve as basis for prosecution for estafa under the said provision. In the case at bar, the records would show that PSI was given assurance by petitioners that they will pay the unpaid balance of their purchases from PSI when the CCTDs with petitioners banks, the Rural Bank of Banate, Inc. (RBBI) and/or the Rural Bank of Leon, Inc. (RBLI), and issued under the name of PSI, would be presented for payment to RBBI and RBLI which, in turn, will pay the amount of deposit stated thereon. The amounts stated in the CCTDs correspond to the purchase cost of the machineries and equipment that co-petitioner Basilio Ambito bought from PSI as evidenced by the Sales Invoices presented during the trial. It is uncontroverted that PSI did not apply for and secure loans from RBBI and RBLI. In fine, PSI and co-petitioner Basilio Ambito were engaged in a vendor-purchaser business relationship while PSI and RBBI/RBLI were connected as depositor-depository. It is likewise established that petitioners employed deceit when they were able to persuade PSI to allow them to pay the aforementioned machineries and equipment through down payments paid either in cash or in the form of checks or through the CCTDs with RBBI and RBLI issued in PSIs name with interest thereon. It was later found out that petitioners never made any deposits in the said Banks under the name of PSI. In fact, the issuance of CCTDs to PSI was not recorded in the books of RBBI and RBLI and the Deputy Liquidator appointed by the Central Bank of the Philippines even corroborated this finding of anomalous bank transactions in her testimony during the trial.

Crim 2 Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim 2 Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Crim 2 Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 127327 LIBERATA AMBITO, BASILIO AMBITO, and CRISANTO AMBITO, petitioners Vs.

You might also like