Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

X #320

Criminal Law Review II (Crimes Agaist Property)


SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS: THROUGH FALSE PRETENSES, FRAUDULENT ACTS OR MEANS

People of the Philippines vs. Ong


G.R. no. 80544 (July 5, 1989)
Gutierrez, Jr., J.

in the crime of estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check, deceit and damage are essential elements of the offense and have to be established with
satisfactory proof to warrant conviction.

FACTS: Accused Dick Ong, one of the depositors of the Home Savings Bank and Trust Company (HSBTC) opened a
savings account with HSBTC with an initial deposit of P22.14 in cash and P10,000.00 in check.

Ong was allowed to withdraw from his savings account with the Bank the sum of P5,000.00, without his check
undergoing the usual and reglementary clearance. The withdrawal slip was signed and approved by Lino Morfe, then
the Branch Manager, and accused Lucila Talabis, the Branch Cashier.

Subsequently, Ong deposited eleven checks in his savings account with the Bank and against which he made
withdrawals against its amount. Again, the withdrawal of the amount by Ong was made before said checks were
cleared and the Bank had collected their amounts and with the approval of Talabis.

However, when the Bank presented the eleven checks issued, deposited and against which Ong made withdrawals
against its amounts, to their respective drawee banks for payment, they were all dishonored for lack or insufficiency
of funds. Because of this, the Bank filed a criminal action for Estafa against Ong, and the Banks officer in charge
Villaran and Talabis.

Accused Lucila Talabis and Ricardo Villaran admitted that they approved the withdrawals of the accused-appellant
against uncleared checks because of the accommodations extended to him by bank officials. However, they
explained that the approval thereof was in accordance with the instruction of then bank manager Lino Morfe; that
this accommodation given or extended to the accused-appellant was common practice in the bank; and that they
reported those withdrawals against, and the dishonor of, the subject checks always sending copies of their reports to
the head office.

The RTC ruled Ong to be guilty for the crime of estafa but acquitted Villarin and Talabis as their guilt were not proven
beyond reasonable doubt. While the CA affirmed RTCs decisions.

ISSUE/s: WON ONG IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF ESTAFA?

Page 1 of 2
2017 BANGSAMORO DIGEST GUILD(AUF, JD est. 2013)
X #320
Criminal Law Review II (Crimes Agaist Property)
SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS: THROUGH FALSE PRETENSES, FRAUDULENT ACTS OR MEANS

HELD: NO. We are convinced that the accused-appellant is innocent of the crime charged against him. The
elements of this kind of estafa are the following: (1) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation
contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to
the payee thereof.

In this case, the fact was established that Ong either issued or indorsed the subject checks. However, it must be
remembered that the reason for the conviction of an accused of the crime of estafa is his guilty knowledge of the
fact that he had no funds in the bank when he negotiated the spurious check. The prosecution failed to prove that
Ong had knowledge with respect to the checks he indorsed.

Moreover, this privilege granted by the bank was not only for the subject checks, but for other past transactions.
Bank officials Fernando Esguerra and Felix Hocson even testified that in some instances prior to July 1, 1980,
especially where the depositor is an important client, the Bank relaxed its rule and internal policy against uncleared
checks and uncollected deposits, and allowed such depositor to withdraw against his uncleared checks and
uncollected deposits. Admittedly, the accused-appellant was one of the important depositors of the Bank. Granting,
in gratia argumenti, that he had in fact acted fraudulently, he could not have done so without the active cooperation
of the Banks employees. Therefore, since Lucila Talabis and Ricardo Villaran were declared innocent of the crimes
charged against them, the same should be said for the accused-appellant. True it is that the Bank suffered damage
in the amount of P575,504.00 but the accused-appellant's liability thereon is only civil.

Final Ruling: We, therefore, find that the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of estafa has not
been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly accused-appeliant is ACQUITTED. However, We find
him civilly liable to the bank in the amount of P575,504.00, less the balance remaining in his savings
account, with legal interest from the date of the filing of this case until full payment.

- JpB

Page 2 of 2
2017 BANGSAMORO DIGEST GUILD(AUF, JD est. 2013)

Вам также может понравиться