This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-02-25 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| This defense of Villanueva is actually anchored on the rule that estafa will not lie when the parties waive the negotiable character of a check, and instead treat the same as proof of an obligation. For instance, when there is an agreement between the parties at the time of the issuance and postdating of the checks that the obligee shall not encash or present the same to the bank, the obligor cannot be prosecuted for estafa because the element of deceit is lacking. When the payee was informed that the checks are not covered by adequate funds, bad faith or estafa shall not arise.[22] | |||||
|
2008-04-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| On the issue of whether the P200,000.00 was really a loan, it is well to remember that a check may be evidence of indebtedness.[41] A check, the entries of which are in writing, could prove a loan transaction.[42] It is pure naiveté to insist that an entrepreneur who has several sources of income and has access to considerable bank credit, no longer has any reason to borrow any amount. | |||||
|
2005-10-11 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Checks have the character of negotiability. At the same time, they may constitute evidence of indebtedness.[20] Those presented by petitioner may indeed evince respondent's indebtedness to him in the amounts stated on the faces of those instruments. He, however, acknowledges (1) that respondent paid some of the obligations through the coprax delivered to petitioner's father; and (2) that petitioner owed and subsequently paid respondent P214,000.[21] | |||||
|
2004-10-21 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The civil liability of petitioner includes only the principal amount of the loan. With respect to the interest checks she issued, the same are void. There was no written proof of the payable interest except for the verbal agreement that the loan shall earn 5% interest per month. Under Article 1956 of the Civil Code, an agreement as to payment of interest must be in writing, otherwise it cannot be valid.[17] Consequently, no interest is due and the interest checks she issued should be eliminated from the computation of her civil liability. | |||||
|
2004-10-01 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In effect, therefore, appellant issued the checks as evidence of indebtedness to cover the value of the jewelry. It has been ruled in this connection that a drawer who issues a check as security or evidence of investment is not liable for Estafa.[19] | |||||
|
2001-02-02 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Contrary to petitioner's assertions, nowhere in said provision does the law require a maker to maintain funds in his bank account for only 90 days. Rather, the clear import of the law is to establish a prima facie presumption of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds under the following conditions (1) presentment within 90 days from date of the check, and (2) the dishonor of the check and failure of the maker to make arrangements for payment in full within 5 banking days after notice thereof. That the check must be deposited within ninety (90) days is simply one of the conditions for the prima facie presumption of knowledge of lack of funds to arise. It is not an element of the offense. Neither does it discharge petitioner from his duty to maintain sufficient funds in the account within a reasonable time thereof. Under Section 186 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, "a check must be presented for payment within a reasonable time after its issue or the drawer will be discharged from liability thereon to the extent of the loss caused by the delay." By current banking practice, a check becomes stale after more than six (6) months,[23] or 180 days. Private respondent herein deposited the checks 157 days after the date of the check. Hence said checks cannot be considered stale. Only the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds was lost, but such knowledge could still be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence. As found by the trial court, private respondent did not deposit the checks because of the reassurance of petitioner that he would issue new checks. Upon his failure to do so, LPI was constrained to deposit the said checks. After the checks were dishonored, petitioner was duly notified of such fact but failed to make arrangements for full payment within five (5) banking days thereof. There is, on record, sufficient evidence that petitioner had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds in or credit with the drawee bank at the time of issuance of the checks. And despite petitioner's insistent plea of innocence, we find no error in the respondent court's affirmance of his conviction by the trial court for violations of the Bouncing Checks Law. | |||||
|
2000-07-10 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| The crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code has the following elements: (1) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee thereof.[19] As with all other forms of estafa, the element of fraud or bad faith is indispensable.[20] | |||||