Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-57555 May 30, 1983
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
vs.
TERESA JALANDONI, accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Rodolfo U. Jimenez for accused-appellant.
ABAD SANTOS, J: In the defunct Circuit Criminal Court of Manila, an information for estafa was filed against TERESA L. JALANDONI. it alleged:
That in or about and during the period comprised between September 8, 9 and 10, 1976, inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with intent to defraud, and with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon her by the Bank of the Philippine Islands, a banking institution duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, engaged in the general banking business in said City, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud said bank by means of the following fraudulent acts and false pretenses, to wit: the said accused making use of a current account she had earlier opened in the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation Greenhills Branch, current account No. 6-06061, issued against said account the following personal checks paid to cash, to wit:
|
Check No.
|
Amount
|
|
RCBC 2424526
|
P300,000.00
|
|
RCBC 2424527
|
200,000.00
|
|
RCBC 2424528
|
250,000.00
|
|
RCBC 2424529
|
300,000.00
|
|
RCBC 2424530
|
200,000.00
|
|
RCBC 2424531
|
150,000.00
|
|
RCBC 2424532
|
300,000.00
|
|
RCBC 2424533
|
200,000.00
|
|
RCBC 2424534
|
250,000.00
|
all in the total amount of TWO MILLION ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P2,150,000.00). Philippine currency, the accused knowing fully well that she did not have sufficient funds to cover the total amount of her said personal checks which she then deposited in the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Mandaluyong Branch, for credit to her current account No. 2274-11 in the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Plaza Cervantes Branch, and even before her said personal checks could be collected and cleared by the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Plaza Cervantes Branch, the said accused, by means of false statements and fraudulent representations made to the Manager, Bank of the Philippine Islands, Plaza Cervantes Branch to the effect that her said deposited personal checks are good and covered with sufficient funds and would be honored by the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation Greenhills Branch, the drawee bank thereof, and by means of other similar deceits induced and succeeded in inducing the Manager of the Bank of the Philippine Islands Plaza Cervantes Branch-, to honor checks drawn by her against her said deposited personal checks, in favor of other parties in the aggregate amount of P2,041,780.00, the said accused knowing fully wen that all her said pretenses and representations were false and untrue for the reason that upon presentation of her said deposited personal checks to the drawee bank Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, Greenhills Branch, for payment, the said checks, with the exception of RCBC No. 2424530 in the amount of P200,000.00, were dishonored and payment thereof refused, the drawer thereof, accused herein, not having the funds to cover the amount of her said personal checks, and the said accused notwithstanding due notice to her from the Bank of the Philippine Islands of said dishonor and demands from the same bank to make good her dishonored personal checks, failed and refused to deposit the necessary amount to cover the amounts of her said dishonored personal checks or the amounts of the checks drawn by her in favor of other persons, which had been honored by the Bank of the Philippine Islands Plaza Cervantes Branch on the strength of her said false pretenses and fraudulent representations that her deposited personal checks against which they were drawn, were good and covered with sufficient funds, to the damage and prejudice of the Bank of the Philippine Islands as represented by Mr. Alberto F. de Villa Abrille its President in the sum of at least P1,391,780.00, Philippine Currency. (Expedients, pp. 1-2.)
After trial, the court rendered the following judgment:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa defined under Article 315, 2(a), and hereby sentences her to a penalty of reclusion perpetua; to indemnify the bank of the Philippine Islands, Cervantes Branch, in the sum of P1,600,000.00 representing the balance of the amount which she swindled from the said bank; and to pay the costs. (Expediente, p. 603.)
The case is now before Us on appeal.
The People's version of the facts is as follows:
On July 30, 1962, the spouses, H. M. Jalandoni and appellant Teresa Jalandoni, opened a joint current account with the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI, for short), Plaza Cervantes Branch and were assigned current account No. 2274-1.
On November 22,1973, after the death of husband H. M. Jalandoni, Ma. Teresa Macapagal, daughter of appellant herein, replaced her father as co- owner with her mother, of current account No. 22741 .
Appellant Teresa Jalandoni, likewise, opened a current account with the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC, for short), Greenhills Branch and was assigned current account No. 6-06061.
On September 8, 1976, appellant Teresa Jalandoni drew three checks totalling P750,000.00, all payable to cash, against her current account No. 6-06061 with the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation and deposited same in her current account No. 2274-1, with the Bank of the Philippine Islands Plaza Cervantes Branch. Prior to, or simultaneously, with, said deposit, she issued 25 checks in the total amount of P745,980.00 which the drawee bank honored, and paid, on her assurance made to the bank manager that the RCBC checks which she had issued and deposited were funded. At the same time and upon appellant's request, the bank returned to her the other eleven checks which were also issued against her current account No. 2274-1.
On September 9, 1976, appellant drew three checks totalling P650,000.00, all payable to cash, against her current account No. 606061 with the RCBC, and deposited the same in her current account No. 2274-1, with the BPI, Cervantes Branch. Prior to, or simultaneous with, said deposit, appellant, likewise, issued 26 checks totalling P639,700.00, which the drawee bank honored and paid on the same date of deposit, on her assurance made to the bank manager that t he RCBC checks which she had issued and deposited were funded, Again, on the same date, and upon her request, the bank returned to her the other eleven checks which were also issued against her current account No. 2274-1.
On September 10, 1976, appellant for the third time drew three checks, Lot ailing P750,000.00 all payable to cash against her current account No. 6-06061 with the RCBC, and deposited the same with her current account No. 2274-1 with the BPI, Cervantes Branch. Again, prior to, or simultaneously with, said deposit, she issued 22 checks in the total amount of P656,100.00 which the drawee bank honored and paid on the same date of deposit, on her assurance made to the bank manager that the RCBC checks which she had issued and deposited were funded. At the same time, and upon her request, the bank manager returned to her the other six checks which she also issued against her current account No. 2274-1.
All of the above RCBC checks, except Check No. 2424530, in the amount of P200,000.00, when presented for payment were dishonored for lack of sufficient funds.
The appellant does not question the veracity of the transactions, but alleges as a defense that she had been previously granted an overdraft, and that it was not her intention to defraud the bank. (Brief, pp. 2-4.)
The People's statement that the appellant does not question the veracity of the transactions is true. In fact, the appellant makes the following admissions:
(a) accused-appellant issued nine (9) RCBC personal checks;
(b) the sum total of the face value of said nine (9) checks is P2,150,000.00;
(c) of said nine (9) checks, one (1) was honored, namely, RCBC check No. 2424530 in the amount of P200,000.00, when the checks went through clearing;
(d) the checks drawn by accused-appellant against said personal checks aggregated (P2,041,780.00);
(e) said checks were drawn in favor of third parties, not the accused-appellant; and
(f) out of the P2,150,000.00 worth of the nine (9) checks involved, the damage suffered is only P1,391,780.00. (Brief, pp. 5-6).
The crucial question which has to be resolved is whether or not the appellant acted fraudulently in her transactions with the Plaza Cervantes Branch of the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI).
We hold that the appellant did not act fraudulently.
The record shows that the appellant had been accorded overdraft (OD) or drawn against uncollected deposit (DAUD) privileges, not just for the nine (9) RCBC checks mentioned in the information, but for many other past transactions. Why she was accorded the privileges was explained by Manuel L.Garcia who was the manager of the Plaza Cervantes branch of BPI when the transactions took place. He said:
Q. [Atty. Jimenez] Did I get you correctly when you said that the checks which you have Identified here earlier were honored by your bank considering that the accused depositor Teresa Jalandoni had been a depositor of long standing?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In other words, these checks were honored because the bank considered her at least prior to the transaction involving these checks that she had a good credit standing with the bank, that is correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did I get you correctly when you said that these checks which were honored by your bank apparently through you were drawn against uncollected deposits of Teresa Jalandoni?
A. Yes. sir.
Q. And precisely you allowed this practice of honoring checks drawn against uncollected deposit only if the check depositor precisely has a good credit standing with the bank, that is right?
A . Yes, sir. (TSN, July 19, 1979, pp. 106-107.)
Eriberto M. Ignacio who first testified on February 18, 1980, and who became manager of the Plaza Cervantes branch of BPI in November, 1976, succeeding Manager Garcia, was also utilized as a defense witness. He testified as follows:
Atty. Jimenez:
Mr. Ignacio, I have here statements, xerox copies of the Bank Statements on current account No. 2274-1 in the name of Teresa Jalandoni and/or Maria Teresa J. Macapagal with the Bank of the Philippine Islands which have been marked as Exhibits I to 32 with submarkings. Will you go over these xerox copies and tell us what relation they have to the xerox copies of Bank Statements of herein accused signature which we have marked and sub-marked indicating overdrawings are they the same xerox copies of the Bank Statements beginning January, 1974?
Witness:
(Witness going over the xerox copies of the statements shown to him by the counsel of the defense)
A. Yes, sir they are.
Q. I invite your attention to the sub-markings in Exhibit "1" to "32" inclusive, will you go over the sub-markings and tell us if they represent overdrawings as of the date opposite, the individual sub- markings in each exhibits?
A. The individual sub-markings here represent the sub-total overdrafts on the date of the markings.
Q. Is that true with respect to an the submarkings in all exhibits 1 to 32?
A. The sub-total are overdrafts.
Q. These are overdraft balances?
A. No, overdrafts but sub-total as of the date opposite the sub markings.
Q. Overdrafts.?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I invite your attention for clarificatory purposes, Mr. Ignacio, shows the number appearing under the column checks numbers, what do these numbers represent?
A. They represent the number of checks.
Q. Checks issued?
A. Serial number of the checks issued.
Q. Checks issued by whom?
A. By the owner of the account.
Q. How about the number or figures under the column checks amount, what do they represent?
A. It's the amount of the checks.
Q. The amount of the checks drawn by the owner of the account?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How about the number under the column deposits, what do they represent?
A. The deposits made by the owner of the account.
Q. How about the abbreviations of "months and dates" under the column date, what do they represent?
A. The dates of the transactions.
Q. Meaning the posting of checks drawn by the owner or of the accourt or the deposits made on the account
A. That is correct.
Q. And the figures or the numbers under the column "balance" would indicate what?
A. The sub-total and the balance.
Q. As of what date?
A. As of the date of the transactions.
Q. Referring to the date under the column date?
A. That is correct.
Q. I notice Mr. Ignacio that under the column "deposits" there is a symbol after the deposits made which reads "JE" can you tell us what the symbol stands for?
A. Journal Entry.
Q. Does that mean that the deposit followed by the symbol "JE" as of the date the deposit made is withdrawable or is it in cash?
A. In check.
Q. Now, I invite your attention to Exhibit "1". Under deposit we have here P28,000.00 and then you have "JE" and afterwards the abbreviation of January and the date of "2, "74", what does that mean. Does it mean P28,000.00 was deposited on January 2, 1974?
A. That is correct.
Q. And the deposit here is by means of check?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So, as of the date January 2, 1974 this deposit was in check?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And this is true with respect to these deposits which are followed by "JE " in Exhibits 1 to 32 are inclusive?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I invite your attention to the bracketed figures in Exhibit 1 denominated as Exhibit 1-a which reads P29,727.59 and there is a symbol which appears to read OD, that symbol stands for what?
A. Overdraft.
Q. And now, there is an overdraft when check posted against the account is over and above the outstanding cash balance?
A. That is correct.
Q. So that based on what appears on Exhibit 1, Mr. Ignacio, the first line which is 532.41 followed by an asterisk, what does this stand for?
A. Credit Balance, previous dates.
Q. And taking into account the amounts under check amount of P22,250.00 and P6,000.00 deposited on January 2 and then P2,000.00 deposited on the same date and the figure under balance P29,727.59 overdraft, does that mean Mr. Ignacio that this amount followed by the symbol OD overdraft was arrived at by summing up the amounts deposited on January 2 and deducting therefrom the credit balance of P532.41?
A. That sub-total was arrived at that way.
Q. And this is the same procedure followed also throughout in Exhibits 1 to 32, that is, checks that are posted are totalled and balance debited against the credit balance to arrive at that sub-total, is that the procedure?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Therefore by doing so if the total amount of the checks posted exceeds the credit balance, it results in a sub-total debit balance or an overdraft?
A. That is correct.
Q. That is the same procedure in Exhibits 1 to 32?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that is the same procedure followed and effected all throughout Exhibits 1 to 32?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, you said earlier with particular reference refers to this entry P28,000.00-JE January 2, 1974, that this is a check deposit?
A. Yes, sir,
Q. Is there a way of determining if this check deposit in the amount of P28,000.00 on January 2, 1974, was cleared on the basis of the Bankl Statement? You examine Exhibit 1?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. No, how do you determine whether a check issued on a particular date was subsequently cleared on the basis of the Bank Statement?
A. If after the clearing time there is no debit account, then the check deposit on that day would have been cleared.
Q. Is there a way of determining after the P28,000.00 deposited January 2, 1974 and posted on that day if it was not returned or it was not made good.?
A. The deposit on January 2 which is not returned, no debit account.
Q. How long, more or less, based on your experience as a bank executive, does it take for a check from the tune of deposit to be cleared?
A. Ordinarily three days.
Q. So, based on your testimony that usually it takes three days to be cleared, then the P28,000.00 deposited on January 2, 1974 was apparently cleared on January 5, 1974, that is the minimum time for clearing checks deposited?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Out of town checks take longer to be cleared?
A. That is right.
Q. I invite your attention to Exhibit 32 now, particularly the portion thereof bracketed and submarked as Exhibit 32-p as appearing on the third sheet, sheet no. 3 of these exhibits in the amount of P1,083,740.48 as of August 9, 1976, now will you tell us Mr. Ignacio if this balance is a credit balance or is it an overdraft?
A. It is an overdraft.
Q. Now, how about the figure bracketed and submarked Exhibit 32-q on the same sheet in the amount reading P1,178,980.48, is this a credit balance or an overdraft?
A. That is an overdraft.
Q. Now, immediately below that amount and under the column "Deposit" the figures P300,000.00-JE as of August 9, 1976, does this mean again that it is a deposit of P300,000.00 by means of a check?
A. That is correct.
Q. And that said sum was deducted from the debit balance or overdraft of P1,178.980.48 and reduced it to P878,980.48 marked as Exhibit "32-r"?
A. That is correct.
Q. When this debit balance or overdraft of P878,980.48 was arrived at, the deposit of P300.000.00 was not yet cleared?
A. That is correct.
Q. I invite your attention to the bracketed figure marked as Exhibit "32-u" reading P1,111.427.48, is this a credit balance or an overdraft?
A. Debit balance or overdraft.
Q. And how about this figure P1,155.227.48 bracketed and marked as Exhibit "32-v", overdraft or credit balance?
A. It is an overdraft.
Q. Reduced only afterwards by the deposit by means of a check for P300,000.00 and another also for P300,000.00 on 11th and 12th, respectively?
A. That is correct.
Q. How about the P1,101,727.48 marked as Exhibit "32-x," is that a credit balance?
A. That is an overdraft.
Q. I will show you Exhibit "D", Mr. Ignacio, which is a xerox copy of the monthly Bank Statement on account No. 2274-1 in the name of Teresa L. Jalandoni and/or Maria Teresa J. Macapagal, particularly the last sheet thereof submarked Exhibit "D-4", will you tell us if the entry which reads P 1,473,403.15 or overdraft was the last transaction on this account?
A. That is correct.
Q. And there is nothing to show, Mr. Ignacio, that account no. 2274-1 was ever, the account was closed?
A. None, sir. (TSN, Oct. 2, 1980, pp. 438-451.)
Lending credence to the claim of the appellant that she had been given OD and/or DAUD privileges is the fact that Branch Manager Manuel L. Garcia was not accused as a co-principal. During the hearing held on January 12, 1983, the Court was informed that Mr. Garcia was allowed to retire. If the appellant had in fact acted fraudulently she could not have done so without the active cooperation of Mr. Garcia. Hence, if Mr. Garcia was innocent of any criminal act, the same can be said for the appellant.
Other circumstances militate against the imputation of fraud. The circumstances have been stated by the appellant thus:
[I]f the accused-appellant had criminal intent to defraud aforethought -
(a) why did she still fund or allow to be honored one of the nine (9) checks involved in the amount of P200,000.00.
(b) why did she draw the checks aggregating P2,041,780.00, drawn against the nine (9) checks, in favor of third parties, instead of withdrawing said amount of P2,041,780.00 for herself.
(c) why did she minimize or reduce the resulting damage to complainant bank to P1,391,780.00 (actually much less as will be shown later), instead of grabbing the full value of the nine (9) checks in question, which is P2,150,000.00. (Brief, p. 6.)
It is to be noted that the nine (9) RCBC checks had a total face value of P2,150,000.00. One of the checks with a face value of P200.000.00 was honored, leaving an initial balance of P1,950.000.00. However, the appellant was able to reduce this balance by other payments to BPI such that in the judgment she was ordered to pay only the amount of P1,600.000.00. Upon the other hand, the appellant claims that the resulting damage to BPI was reduced to P1,391,780.00. The appellant states without contradiction "that, with the authority of her son, she mortgaged to the bank a lot belonging to the latter for a loan of P250,000.00, which was applied to one of the dishonored checks in dispute, as shown by Exhibits 37 (promissory note signed by the son), 37-a (crime estate mortgage), 37-b (Trans. Cert. of Title No. T- 71084), 37-c (Special Power of Attorney), and 38 (check for P 250,000.00); additionally, she also gave the president of the bank, Mr. Alberto F. de Villa-Abrifle, a family friend, jewelry worth P300,000.00 as a token of her sincerity to pay (Id., pp. 13-17, 19-28). If the accused-appellant had the criminal intent to defraud the bank, would she have encumbered the property of her son, obviously worth more than P250,000.00. Would she have given up jewelry worth P300,000.00." (Brief, pp. 15-16.)
WHEREFORE, the guilt of the appellant not having been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, the appealed judgment is hereby set aside and another one is entered acquitting her of the charge. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
MAKASIAR, J., dissenting:
The conviction of the accused herein should be affirmed. It is amply proven that the personal checks drawn by her in favor of other persons had been honored by the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Plaza Cervantes Branch, because of her active false pretenses and fraudulent representations to the branch manager that her deposited personal checks against which they were drawn, were good and covered with sufficient funds, when in fact they were not so covered.
Separate Opinions
MAKASIAR, J., dissenting:
The conviction of the accused herein should be affirmed. It is amply proven that the personal checks drawn by her in favor of other persons had been honored by the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Plaza Cervantes Branch, because of her active false pretenses and fraudulent representations to the branch manager that her deposited personal checks against which they were drawn, were good and covered with sufficient funds, when in fact they were not so covered.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
|
