Article 20 Case Digest: Castro et. al. V. Mendoza et. al.

 HANIEL R. CASTRO AND PIO C. CASTRO, PETITIONERS VS. HON. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, BRANCH VI, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS. 

G.R. NO. 50173, SEPTEMBER 21, 1993

FACTS:

    The petitioner, Pio Castro, ordered construction materials from Victor Felipe for the construction of his apartment house. As orders were placed on different dates by Pio Castro, so also were deliveries made by Felipe. Each time, no payment was made; deliveries, however, continued until the total unpaid account reached P18,081.15. Felipe kept making demands for payment but Castro, on every such occasion, would ask for an extension of time within which to pay. 

    Finally, on 21 April 1975, Haniel Castro, son of Pio Castro, went to see Felipe in Cebu City. The young Castro issued on even date an Insular Bank of Asia and America check for the entire amount due from his father. When presented for encashment, the check was dishonored because the bank account had by then already been closed. Demands for payment of the due obligation were again made by Felipe. In return, he got either excuses or promises from the two Castros. Exasperated, Elipe filed his complaint that led to the filing of the estafa case against both Pio and Haniel Castro.

    Upon trial, the two respondents was found guilty of estafa as charged. 

    In this petition, the conviction by the court a quo is questioned basically on the ground that the factual settings gave rise to a civil, not criminal, liability.

ISSUES:

    Whether or not the accused are liable under Article 315 paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. 

RULING:

    No. The essential requirements of the offense are that: (1) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time it was issued; (2) lack or sufficiency of funds to cover the check; (3) damage to the payee thereof. 

    Evidently, the law penalizes the issuance of a check only if it were itself the immediate consideration for the reciprocal receipt of benefits. In other words, the check must be issued concurrently with and in exchange for a material gain to make it a punishable offense under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Article 91 - Family Code and Case: Nobleza Vs. Nuega, G.R. No. 193038

Article 91           Unless otherwise provided in this chapter or in the marriage settlements, the community property shall consist of all the property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter.           The law provides for two kinds of properties that shall form part of the absolute community of properties; namely, (1) All properties owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage;           (2) All properties acquired after the celebration of the marriage.           The law provides, however, that even if the parties are governed by the absolute community, they may agree that some properties be exempted form its coverage. If that is so, then, the ante-nuptial agreement embodied in their law further provides that there are proper...
Read more

Article 20 Case Digest: Sps. Quisumbing Vs. Meralco

SPOUSES ANTONIO AND LORNA QUISUMBING, PETITIONER VS. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), RESPONDENT G.R. NO. 142943, APRIL 3, 2002 FACTS:     On March 3, 1995, the respondents took a routine check of all single phased meters in Green Meadows avenue. The house owned by the petitioners was one of the houses that was inspected. The petitioners was not around at the of the inspection, the petitioners asked permission from the petitioners through their secretary. The secretary witnessed the inspection. Upon inspection, the respondents discovered that the terminal seal of the meter was missing, the meter cover seal was deformed, the meter dials of the meter was mis-aligned and there were scratches on the meter base plate. This was a clear sign that the meter has been tampered. The petitioners denied liability for the tampering. The respondent then, temporarily disconnected the electric services of the petitioners until they pay the amount of P178,875.01 representing the differential ...
Read more

Article 39, Case Digest - Family Code: Wiegel vs. Judge Sempio-Diy

  LILIA OLIVA WIEGEL, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE ALICIA V. SEMPIO-DIY (as presiding judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City) and KARL HEINZ WIEGEL, respondents. G.R. No. L-53703 August 19, 1986 PARAS, J.: Facts:           This a petition for certiorari for the declaration of nullity of marriage of the petitioner, Lilia Wiegel and respondent, Karl Heinz Wiegel, by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City.           Herein respondent claims that his marriage to the petitioner is void because of an existing marriage prior to their marriage. The petitioner contends that her first marriage was void because they forced to enter in the said marriage. Moreover, the petitioner assails that her first husband had a prior existing marriage, therefore, making the marriage void.           Respondent jud...
Read more