Estafa by issuing bouncing check - G.R. No. 184053

G.R. No. 184053

(click link)

"x x x.


Paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

ART. 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.


The elements of estafa under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) the postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) lack of sufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee.[9]

In the case at bar, the prosecution sufficiently established appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for estafa under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. According to Solis’s clear and categorical testimony, appellant issued to him the 10 postdated Prudential Bank checks, each in the amount of P5,000.00 or a total of P50,000.00, in his house in exchange for their cash equivalent. We quote the pertinent portions of the transcript:

[On Direct Examination]

Q: Mr. Witness, why did you file this complaint against the accused?
A: She issued me checks in exchange for cash, ten postdated checks, ma’am.

Q: When did Mrs. Montaner issue to you these checks?
A: In May 1996, ma’am.

Q: What was the purpose of issuing to you these checks?
A: Because she needed cash, ma’am.

Q: And how many checks did she issue to you?
A: Ten checks, ma’am.

Q: And what is the date of the checks that were issued to you?
A: June 17, 1996, ma’am.

Q: What is the total value of these ten checks?
A: Fifty Thousand Pesos.

Q: At the time these checks were issued to you, what if any, was her representation about them?
A: To deposit those checks on their due date, ma’am.

Q: And aside from telling you to deposit those checks on their due date, what else did she represent to you regarding these checks?
A: None, ma’am.

Q: Did you deposit these checks?
A: Yes, ma’am.

Q: Where?
A: At the Premier Bank, San Pedro, Laguna.

Q: What happened to these checks after depositing the same?
A: The checks bounced, ma’am.

Q: All these checks?
A: Yes, ma’am, all checks bounced for reason account closed.

Q: After these checks were dishonored what did you do?
A: I informed her about that.

Q: Thru what, verbal or written?
A: Initially it was verbal, then I informed her thru a demand letter, ma’am.

x x x x

Fiscal (continuing):

Q: You said that the accused issued to you ten checks in exchange for cash, where are those checks?
A. The original checks are with me here, ma’am.

Q. Handed to this representation are checks, Prudential Bank checks Nos. 002284, 002285, 002286, 002287, 002288, 002289, 002290, 002291, 002292, 002293 all dated June 17, 1996 and all in the amount of P50,000 [should be P5,000.00] each. Mr. Witness, there appears from these checks a signature at the bottom portion whose signature is this?
A. The signature of Mrs. Montaner, ma’am.

Q. Why do you say it is her signature?
A. She signed those in my presence, ma’am.

Q. I am showing these checks to the opposing counsel for comparison…

Atty. Peñala

The checks are admitted, your Honor.

x x x x

[On Cross-Examination]

Atty. Peñala (continuing):

Q: When Mrs. Montaner issued those checks, ten checks were they issued in your house or in her house?
A: In my house, sir.

Q: Mrs. Montaner brought the checks in your house?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Can you tell us the time of the day when she brought the checks to you?
A: May 17, 1996 at 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon, sir.

Q: Was she alone or including her husband?
A: She was alone, sir.[10]

From the circumstances narrated above, it was evident that Solis would not have given P50,000.00 cash to appellant had it not been for her issuance of the 10 Prudential Bank checks. These postdated checks were undoubtedly issued by appellant to induce Solis to part with his cash. However, when Solis attempted to encash them, they were all dishonored by the bank because the account was already closed.

Solis wrote appellant a demand letter dated October 13, 1996[11] which was received by appellant’s husband to inform appellant that her postdated checks had bounced and that she must settle her obligation or else face legal action from Solis. Appellant did not comply with the demand nor did she deposit the amount necessary to cover the checks within three days from receipt of notice. 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.

As for appellant’s claims that she merely entrusted to Galope the blank but signed checks imprudently, without knowing that Galope would give them as a guarantee for a loan, the Court views such statements with the same incredulity as the lower courts.

Evidence, to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be credible in itself – such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. The Court has no test of the truth of human testimony, except its conformity to our knowledge, observation and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous and is outside judicial cognizance.[12]

Appellant wishes to impress upon the Court that she voluntarily parted with her blank but signed checks not knowing or even having any hint of suspicion that the same may be used to defraud anyone who may rely on them. Verily, appellant’s assertion defies ordinary common sense and human experience.

Moreover, it is elementary that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence which has far less evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[13] We agree with the lower courts that appellant’s bare denial cannot be accorded credence for lack of evidentiary support. As aptly noted by the trial court, appellant’s failure to produce Galope as a witness to corroborate her story is fatal to her cause.[14] In all, the Court of Appeals committed no error in upholding the conviction of appellant for estafa.

x x x."