Estafa by postdating a check

In other words, the Prosecution must show that the person to whom the check was delivered would not have parted with his money or property were it not for the issuance of the check by the offender. Even after the dishonor of the check, Ligaray did not personally see and meet whoever he had dealt with and to whom he had made the demand for payment, and that he had talked with him only over the telephone.

The essential elements of this crime are the following: (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. Secondly, the check delivered to Ligaray was made payable to cash – this type of check was payable to the bearer and could be negotiated by mere delivery without the need of an indorsement.

estafa by postdating a check-36

of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 11, finding appellant Alamo Reyes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa by postdating a bouncing check under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No.

818, and sentencing her to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua as maximum.

2053, and that the proper penalty to be imposed should be reclusion perpetua.

January 17, 2005] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. D E C I S I O N AZCUNA, J.: This case was certified to us for review by the Court of Appeals after finding appellant Lea Sagan Juliano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d), of the Revised Penal Code, in Criminal Case No.

In every criminal prosecution, however, the identity of the offender, like the crime itself, must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

In this case, the Prosecution established that Ligaray had released the goods to Cañada because of the postdated check the latter had given to him; and that the check was dishonored when presented for payment because of the insufficiency of funds.

There is deemed to be a prima facie evidence of knowledge on the part of the maker, drawer or issuer of insufficiency of funds in or credit with the drawee bank of the check issued if the dishonored check is presented within 90 days from the date of the check and the maker or drawer fails to pay thereon or to make arrangement with the drawee bank for that purpose. 22 clearly provides that this presumption arises not from the mere fact of drawing, making and issuing a bum check; there must also be a showing that, within five banking days from receipt of the notice of dishonor, such maker or drawer failed to pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon or to make arrangement for its payment in full by the drawee of such check.stafa as defined and penalized under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

The statute has created the prima facie presumption evidently because "knowledge" which involves a state of mind would be difficult to establish. The Information alleged that on or about May 17, 1996 in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court accused Virginia (Baby) P.

142254 post-dated July 30, 1991 for a value of EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED PESOS (89,800.00), Philippine Currency, drawn against the Philippine Commercial International Bank, Isulan Branch, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, knowing at the time of issue that she did not have funds with the drawee bank for payment of the said check and when presented for encashment, the same was dishonored by the said bank for reason Drawn Against Insufficient Funds, and on August 20, 1991, the said accused again issued PCIB Check Nos.

Tags: , ,