GEMMA ILAGAN et al. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 522 SCRA 699 (2007)
Deceit and damage are the essential elements of estafa. Gemma Ilagan issued four post dated checks to Jazshirt Trading, which is owned by petitioner Aldwyn Sy. Jaime Tan, on the other hand, is the general manager of Jazshirt. Tan and Sy endorsed the checks to Rosita Tan for the purposes of changing to cash, relying on the assurance of Ilagan that the checks are backed by sufficient funds. On the day of maturity of the checks, the first three checks were dishonored due to “Account Closed.” The fourth check was dishonored due to “Drawn Against Insufficiency of Funds‖. Rosita Tan then filed 3 complaints of violation of B.P. 22 on Ilagan, Sy, and Jaime Tan. Ilagan admitted issuing the post-dated checks payable to Jazshirt Trading. She contends that she was unable to re-sell the goods; hence, she returned them to Jazshirt Trading, hoping to recover the checks. Sy and Jaime Tan contend that they never knew that the checks do not have sufficient funds and claims that they were only included by Rosita Tan on the complaint because of a family dispute.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an endorser of a check, who believed in good faith that the check is backed by sufficient sureties, can be held liable for B.P. 22
HELD:
Deceit and damage are the essential elements of estafa. Deceit to constitute estafa under Article 315 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code must be the efficient cause of the defraudation. There must be concomitance: the issuance of the check should be the means to obtain money or property from the payer. By Rosita‘s own admission, she and petitioner Tan had, prior to the transaction in question, been engaged in “rediscounting” or “discounting” transactions for four (4) years in which she charged interests which varied because she sourced the cash for the purpose from different persons. Given the admitted previous 4-year period of “rediscounting” transactions between Rosita and petitioner Tan, if he indeed assured her that the checks in question would be sufficiently funded on maturity, the same was unnecessary to convince her to change them with cash. Any such assurance was not the efficient cause which induced Rosita to change the checks with cash. It is in this light that this Court credits the disclaimer of petitioner Sy of having gone with petitioner Tan to Rosita‘s house to negotiate the checks and assure her that they would be sufficiently funded on maturity.
