PACHECO V.

CA

FACTS:
Due to dire financial needs of petitioner spouses (Pacheco), who were engaged in the construction
business, secured multiple loans from Vicencio. At every loan secured, the lender compelled the
spouses to issue an undated check despite the admission of spouses that their bank account
has insufficient funds or as on a later date, already closed. Lender assured them that the issuance of the
check was only evidence of indebtedness, that it would not be presented to the bank, and it would be for
formalities only. On the date wherein there was an unpaid balance to the loans secured by the spouses,
the lender had them place a date on two of the later checks issued. Surprised later on, the
spouses were charged with estafa as the checks were presented for encashment and was
dishonored.

ISSUE: W/N there is estafa committed in issuing the checks despite informing the creditor that the bank
account has insufficient funds/closed?

HELD:
Both courts below relied so much on the fact that Mrs. Vicencio's husband is a
former Judge who knows the law. He should have known, then, that he need not even ask the petitioners
to place a date on the check, because as holder of the check, he could have inserted the date
pursuant to Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL). Moreover, as stated in Section 14
thereof, complainant, as the person in possession of the check, has prima facie authority to
complete it by filling up the blanks therein. Besides, pursuant to Section 12 of the same law, a
negotiable instrument is not rendered invalid by reason only that it is antedated or postdated.
Thus, the allegation of Mrs. Vicencio that the date to be placed by Virginia was necessary so as to make
the check evidence of indebtedness is nothing but a ploy. Petitioners openly disclosed and never hid the
fact that they no longer have funds in the bank as their bank account was already closed. Knowledge by
the complainant that the drawer does not have sufficient funds in the bank at the time it was issued to him
does not give rise to a case for estafa through bouncing checks.

BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, THE NEGOTIABLE CHARACTER OF A CHECK MAY

BE WAIVED AND THE INSTRUMENT BE SIMPLY TREATED AS PROOF OF AN OBLIGATION. There
cannot be deceit on the part of the spouses because they agreed with the lender at the time of the
issuance and postdating of the checks that the same shall not be encashed or presented to the
bank. As per assurance of the lender, the checks are nothing but evidence of the loan or security
thereof in lieu of and for the same purpose as a promissory note.

Royal Shirt v. Co Bon Tic

FACTS:
Royal Shirt Factory is suing Co Bon Tic to recover the sum of Pl,422 with interest at 12% per
annum and 25% attorney’s fee, said to represent the balance of the purchase price of 350 pairs
of "Balleteenas" shoes. The principal issues in the Municipal Court was the nature of the sale of
the 350 pairs of shoes by plaintiff to defendant — whether it was an outright sale as contended
by the plaintiff, or a sale merely on consignment as claimed by the defendant who wanted to
return the shoes not yet sold by him.
MTC ruled that it was sale on consignment, sentencing defendant to pay P628 with legal
interest. However, CFI ruled that it was an outright sale. CFI sentenced the defendant to pay the
above-written stipulation.

[IMPORTANT TO THE TOPIC] Exhibit “B” (sales invoice) contained P1,422 with 12% interest plus
25% attorney’s fee in printed form in its terms and conditions. Exhibit “A” (order slip) contained
only 20% attorney’s fee and no interest rate also in printed form. Neither were signed by the
defendant.

ISSUES:
1.) (issue of the case) Whether or not the sale was an absolute sale or a sale on consignment?
2.) (important to the topic) Whether or not the defendant is liable for the interest stipulated?

HELD:
1.) The court ruled that it is a straight sale basing on the evidence including the conduct of the
parties (defendant’s acceptance of an invoice with notes on the different partial payments,
having no mention of what to do with the unsold shoes, absence of stipulation of period of
time, etc.). The nature of the transaction must be judged by other evidence, including the
conduct of the parties at the time of making the contract and subsequent thereto.

Exhibit "B" of the plaintiff is an invoice of the same 350 pairs of shoes whose price including
sales tax is listed as P2,450. It was evidently not only accepted by the defendant but on it he
noted down in his own handwriting the different partial payments of P500, P528 and lastly of
the controversial P420 by check.

He obviously accepted the straight sale to him on credit of the whole 350 pairs of shoes for
P2,450 and made partial payments on account thereof. In making said partial payments, he
made no mention whatsoever of the number of shoes sold by him and the number of shoes
remaining unsold, which he should have done had the sale been on the consignment basis.

If the sale had been on consignment, a stipulation as to the period of time for the return of the
unsold shoes should have been made; but evidently that had not been done and defendant
kept the shoes unsold more or less indefinitely, but giving the same excuse that he could not
return them to the plaintiff because he did not know where to return them (which is impossible
because Royal Shirt Factory was well-known).

2.) Both the printed document of the order slip (Exhibit “A”) and the sales invoice (Exhibit “B”)
were unsigned by the defendant. Had he signed it, he would be liable for the interest. But
because of the absence of stipulation as to the rate of interest he would be paying only the
legal rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint, with costs, and
nothing for attorney’s fees.
Piñote v. Ayco

FACTS:
Judge Ayco of RTC South Cotabato allowed the defense in "People v. Vice Mayor Salvador
Ramos" to present evidence, even in the absence of State Prosecutor Pinote who was
undergoing medical treatment at the time. The prosecutor relayed his absence only after the
scheduled hearing (presentation of evidence) via Manifestation. On the next scheduled hearing,
the judge allowed the public prosecutor to cross-examine the witness of the defense, but the
prosecutor refused alleging that the presentation of witness in his absence should be invalid.
An administrative case was filed by the public prosecutor against the judge.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the judge can allow prosecution trial without the presence of the public
prosecutor?

HELD:
In the trial court level, the public prosecutor's presence is indispensable. All criminal actions are
to be prosecuted under the direction and control of the Prosecutor. Judge's act of allowing the
presentation of the defense witnesses in the absence of complainant public prosecutor or a
private prosecutor designated for the purpose is thus a clear transgression of the Rules which
could not be rectified by subsequently giving the prosecution a chance to cross-examine the
witnesses.

The Prosecution must be present especially for purposes of raising objections.

People v. Soriano

Prosecution charged appellant with raping his then 12-year old daughter
AAA, in an Information.

That sometime between October 2000 to December 11, 2001, at Barangay San Leonardo, Municipality of
Bambang, Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, with lewd designs, by means of force, threat, intimidation and grave abuse of authority, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of his own daughter AAA, 12 years old,
against the latter's will and consent, to her own damage and prejudice.

The prosecution presented AAA who narrated the harrowing ordeal she went through with her
father. AAA further testified that her father impregnated her and she eventually gave birth to a
baby boy. AAA's testimony was corroborated by her aunt, CCC.

For his defense, appellant merely denied the charges against him. The defense also presented
EEE, appellant's wife and victim's mother. On the witness stand, EEE presented the affidavit of
desistance allegedly executed by AAA.

Trial court found that it was conclusively shown that accused Dominador Soriano raped his
daughter AAA, several times. Court of Appeals armed the trial court's decision

ISSUE:
Is the defendant liable for multiple rape?

HELD:
Appellant makes issue of the fact that AAA could not remember whether her father had pulled
down her panties. This inconsistency refers merely to a minor and insignificant detail which
does not even pertain to the gravamen of the crime. The Court has repeatedly ruled that
discrepancies referring only to minor details do not detract from the fact of the crime and affect
the credibility of the witness, as long as these are coherent and intrinsically believable on the
whole.

Appellant further argues that the affidavit of desistance is evidence that AAA by her own
declaration was not raped by appellant. The Court notes that it was AAA's mother who
presented the affidavit of desistance while on the witness stand. AAA, however, refused to
validate the due execution of the affidavit.

In sum, the prosecution had established that appellant had carnal knowledge of
AAA, his minor daughter, on at least two occasions.

[IMPORTANT TO THE TOPIC]

The Court observes that the information charged more than one offense in violation of
Section 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Considering that appellant
did not seasonably object to the multiple offenses in the information, the court may convict
the appellant of as many as are charged and proved. The trial court and the appellate court
merely found the appellant guilty of "multiple rape" without specifying the number of rapes
that appellant is guilty of. While this may have been irrelevant considering that appellant would
have been sentenced to suffer the extreme penalty of death even if only one count of rape was
proven, the same is still important since this would have bearing on appellant's civil liability.
Further, there is no such crime as "multiple rape." In this case, appellant is guilty of two counts
of rape qualified by the circumstances that the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and
the offender is the parent of the victim.