Digest: JOY LEE RECUERDO vs. PEOPLE

Digest: JOY LEE RECUERDO vs. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 168217.June 27, 2006
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
 

Facts:

Private respondent Yolanda G. Floro is engaged in the business of buying and selling of jewelry. Herein accused-appellant/petitioner Joy Lee Recuerdo, on the other hand, a dentist by profession, who was introduced to Floro by the latter’s cousin Aimee Aoro and became her customer. Sometime of December 1993, Recuerdo went to the house of Floro and purchased from her two pieces of jewelry, to wit: a 2.19 carat diamond round stone in white gold setting worth P220,000.00 pesos, and one piece of loose 1.55 karat marquez diamond with a value of P130,000.00 pesos.

For the 2.19 carat diamond stone, accused issued and delivered to the complainant ten post-dated checks each in the amount of P22,000.00 drawn against Unitrust Development Bank, Makati Commercial Center Branch. Only six (6) postdated checks are subject of Criminal Case No. 2750-M-94. For the 1.55 carat marquez loose diamond, accused issued and delivered to complainant ten (10) postdated checks, each in the amount of P13,000.00 drawn against PCI Bank, Makati, Dela Rosa Branch. Six of those checks are subject of Criminal Case.

In yet another transaction that transpired in the early evening of February 7, 1994, Recuerdo once again proceeded at Floro’s house in Meycauayan, Bulacan and bought another set of jewelry, this time a pair of diamond earrings worth P768,000.00 pesos. She was given seven (7) postdated checks one for P168,000.00 as downpayment and another six (6) postdated checks drawn against Prudential Bank, Legaspi Village, Makati Branch, each for P100,000.00 representing the balance in the aggregate amount of P600,000.00 pesos (Checks Nos. 100783, 01184, 01185, 011786, 011787 and 011788, Record, Criminal Case No. 2750-M-94, pp. 138-150) subject matter of Crim. Case No. 2751-M-94.

Floro deposited the aforementioned checks at Liberty Savings & Loan Association. Upon presentment for encashment by said depositary bank with the different drawee banks on their respective maturity dates, the six (6) Prudential Bank checks were all dishonored for having been drawn against closed accounts. With her pieces of jewelry still unpaid, Floro, through counsel, made formal demands requiring Requerdo to pay the amounts represented by the dishonored checks. Floro’s efforts to obtain payment, though, only proved futile as Requerdo continuously refused to pay the value of the purchased pieces of jewelry.

Upon her arraignment, Recuerdo, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty.  The 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.

CA rendered judgment affirming with modification the decision of the RTC.

Petitioners Argument: Petitioner avers that she acted in good faith and exerted her utmost efforts to confer with the private complainant to settle her obligations. She points out that she made monthly cash payments to lessen her civil liability and later on, for convenience, deposited the monthly payments at the private complainant’s bank account with the Bank of the Philippine Islands. She continued to make payments even during the pendency of the case in the CA, and continues to make deposits to private complainant’s bank account.

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. Petitioner insists that criminal intent in embezzlement is not based on technical mistakes as to the legal effect of a transaction honestly entered into, and there can be no embezzlement if the mind of the person doing the act is innocent or if there is no wrongful purpose.

Issue: Whether or not accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:

Yes.  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 essential elements of the felony are: (1) a check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time it is issued; (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee thereof. 

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.

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.

There can be no estafa if the accused acted in good faith because good faith negates malice and deceit.  Good faith is an intangible and abstract quality with no technical meaning or statutory definition, and it encompasses, among other things, an honest belief, the absence of malice and the absence of design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage. An individual’s personal good faith is a concept of his own mind, therefore, may not conclusively be determined by his protestations alone. It implies honesty of intention and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry. The essence of good faith lies in an honest belief in the validity of one’s right, ignorance of a superior claim, and absence of intention to overreach another. In People v. Gulion, the Court held that:

Good faith is a defense to a charge of Estafa by postdating a check. This may be manifested by the accused’s offering to make arrangements with his creditor as to the manner of payment or, as in the present case, averring that his placing his signature on the questioned checks was purely a result of his gullibility and inadvertence, with the unfortunate result that he himself became a victim of the trickery and manipulations of accused-at-large.  

 

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 credenc