This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-02-25 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by P.D 818, the penalty for estafa when the total value of the checks exceed P22,000.00 is reclusion temporal in its maximum period (i.e, 17 years, four months and one day to 20 years), plus one year for each additional P10,000. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term shall be from six years and one day to 12 years of prison mayor. In imposing the indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day of prison mayor, as minimum, to thirty years of reclusion perpetua as maximum, the CA correctly applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law. It is well to state that reclusion perpetua merely describes in this instance the penalty actually imposed on account of the amount of the fraud involved.[26] | |||||
|
2014-06-04 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| This provision applies to an incomplete but delivered instrument. Under this rule, if the maker or drawer delivers a pre-signed blank paper to another person for the purpose of converting it into a negotiable instrument, that person is deemed to have prima facie authority to fill it up. It merely requires that the instrument be in the possession of a person other than the drawer or maker and from such possession, together with the fact that the instrument is wanting in a material particular, the law presumes agency to fill up the blanks.[16] | |||||
|
2013-09-04 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The essential elements of the crime charged are that: (a) a check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check is issued; (b) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (c) damage to the payee thereof.[26] It is the criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of a check that is punishable, not the non-payment of a debt.[27] Prima facie evidence of deceit exists by law upon proof that the drawer of the check failed to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor. | |||||
|
2013-07-24 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, deceit and damage are additional and essential elements of the offense. It is the fraud or deceit employed by the accused in issuing a worthless check that is penalized.[17] A prima facie presumption of deceit arises when a check is dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds.[18] Records show that a notice of dishonor as well as demands for payment, were sent to petitioners. The presumption of deceit applies, and petitioners must overcome this presumption through substantial evidence. These issues may only be threshed out in a criminal investigation which must proceed independently of the civil case. | |||||
|
2010-03-15 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| However, BPI mistakenly marked the dishonored checks with "drawn against insufficient funds (DAIF), " instead of "drawn against uncollected deposit (DAUD)." DAUD means that the account has, on its face, sufficient funds but not yet available to the drawer because the deposit, usually a check, had not yet been cleared.[18] DAIF, on the other hand, is a condition in which a depositor's balance is inadequate for the bank to pay a check.[19] In other words, in the case of DAUD, the depositor has, on its face, sufficient funds in his account, although it is not available yet at the time the check was drawn, whereas in DAIF, the depositor lacks sufficient funds in his account to pay the check. Moreover, DAUD does not expose the drawer to possible prosecution for estafa and violation of BP 22, while DAIF subjects the depositor to liability for such offenses.[20] It is clear therefore that, contrary to BPI's contention, DAIF differs from DAUD. Now, does the erroneous marking of DAIF, instead of DAUD, give rise to BPI's liability for damages? | |||||