DEADLINE: 26 DECEMBER 2020

1. ANGELES 11. MADRAZO

2. BASINANG 12. MAMALO
3. BRAGA 13. MANACAP
4. BUENAFLOR 14. MESIONA
5. CAPISTRANO 15. MIRAATO
6. CASTILLO 16. SERUELA
7. CAYBOT 17. TADIQUE
8. CUARTERO 18. UNTALo
9. DEROGONGAN 19. GERONGA
10. FRIAS 20. PARACALE

Function and Importance of Negotiable Instruments

A. Substitute for Money but not legal tender

1. Myron C. Papa, Administrator of the Testate Estate of Angela M. Butte vs. A.U. Valencia and 1
Co. Inc., Felix Peñarroyo, Sps. Arsenio B. Reyes & Amanda Santos, and Delfin Jao, G.R. No.
105188, January 23, 1998, First Division, J. Kapunan

Issue: If the holder intentionally did not encash the check will the sale be consummated in the
light of Article 1249 of the Civil Code?

Answer:

● While it is true that the delivery of a check produces the effect of payment only
when it is cashed, pursuant to Art. 1249 of the Civil Code, the rule is otherwise if the
debtor is prejudiced by the creditor's unreasonable delay in presentment. The
acceptance of a check implies an undertaking of due diligence in presenting it for
payment, and if he from whom it is received sustains loss by want of such diligence,
it will be held to operate as actual payment of the debt or obligation for which it
was given.

2. Cebu International Finance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, Vicente Alegre, G.R. No. 2
123031, October 12, 1999, Second Division, J. Quisumbing

Issue: What law governs the money market transaction of CIFC with Alegre: Article 1249 of the
Civil Code or Section 137 of the NIL? Is a check a legal tender? Was Alegre bound by the
compromise agreement of CICF and BPI? When the BPI deducted the amount of the check
from CIFC’s current account, did this ipso facto operate as a discharge or payment of the
check?

Answer:

● In the case at bar,Article 1249 of the New Civil Code should be applied considering
the money market transaction between the petitioner and the private respondent is
in the nature of a loan.
● A check is not a legal tender, and therefore cannot constitute valid tender of
payment.
 ● The compromise agreement could not bind a party who did not sign the compromise
agreement nor avail of its benefits, thus, the stipulations in the compromise
agreement is unenforceable against Vicente Alegre, not a party thereto.
● When the bank deducted the amount of the check from CIFC’s current account, this
did not ipso facto operate as a discharge or payment of the instrument because
although the value of the check was deducted from the funds of CIFC, it was not
delivered to the payee, Vicente Alegre.

3. Juan A. Rueda, Jr. vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 129064, 3
November 29, 2000, En banc, J. Pardo

Issues:

(1) What does “cash” mean in a generally accepted auditing practice?

(2) Are NIs cash?

Answers:

● The generally accepted auditing principle is that cash means "cash on hand or in
bank".
● Yes, negotiable instrument; such as personal checks, travelers’ checks, cashiers’
checks, bank drafts, and money orders, are also items commonly reported as cash.

4. Pio Barretto Realty Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, Judge Perfecto A.S. 4
Laguio, Jr. and Honor P. Moslares, G.R. No. 132362, June 28, 2001, Second Division, J.
Bellosillo

Issue: What is the effect of the delivery of the check? Is it not that payment takes effect only
when the check is encashed?

Answer:

● The Supreme Court ruled that while delivery of a check produces the effect of payment
only when it is encashed, the rule is otherwise if the debtor was prejudiced by the
creditor's unreasonable delay in presentment. Acceptance of a check implies an
undertaking of due diligence in presenting it for payment. If no such presentment was
made, the drawer cannot be held liable irrespective of loss or injury sustained by the
payee. Payment will be deemed effected and the obligation for which the check was
given as conditional payment will be discharged.
● In the present case, the fact that the check paid to Moslares by Barretto Realty was
never encashed should not be invoked against the latter. Moslares never questioned
the tender done three years earlier. Therefore, Barretto Realty is the absolute owner
of the disputed properties subject matter of the Compromise Agreement

5. Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Spouses Reynaldo and Victoria Royeca, G.R. No. 176664, 5
July 21, 2008, Third Division, J. Nachura

Issue: Whether the tender of the check constitutes payment?

ANSWER:

● No. Settled is the rule that payment must be made in legal tender. A check is not
legal tender and, therefore, cannot constitute a valid tender of payment. Since a
negotiable instrument is only a substitute for money and not money, the delivery of
such an instrument does not, by itself, operate as payment. Mere delivery of checks
does not discharge the obligation under a judgment. The obligation is not
 extinguished and remains suspended until the payment by commercial document is
actually realized.

6. Eumelia R. Mitra vs. People of the Philippines and Felicisimo S. Tarcel, G.R. No. 191404, July 6
5, 2010, Second Division, J. Mendoza

Issue: Functions and Importance of Negotiable Instrument.

Answer:

● A negotiable instrument serves as a substitute for money and as a convenient form

of payment in financial transactions and obligations. The use of negotiable
instruments as payment allows commercial and banking transactions to proceed
without the actual handling of money, thus, doing away with the need to physically
count bills and coins whenever payment is made. It permits commercial and banking
transactions to be carried out quickly and efficiently.

7. Donnina C. Halley vs. Printwell Inc., G.R. No. 157549, May 30, 2011, Third Division, J. 7
Bersamin

Issue: Is check money? When does a bill of exchange produce the fact of payment?

Answer:

● No, check is not money but is only a substitute for money. A bill of exchange produces
the effect of payment only when it has been encashed.

8. Leonardo Bognot vs. RPI Lending Corporation represented by its General Manager, Dario J. 8
Bernandez, G.R. No. 180144, September 24, 2014, Second Division, J. Brion

Issue: Is a check a legal tender? Can it constitute a valid tender of payment?

A check is not legal tender and, therefore, cannot constitute a valid tender of payment.
Since a negotiable instrument is only a substitute for money and not money, the delivery of
such an instrument does not, by itself, operate as payment. Mere delivery of checks does not
discharge the obligation under a judgment. The obligation is not extinguished and remains
suspended until the payment by commercial document is actually realized.

What is the effect of Article 1249, paragraph 2?

Article 1249, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code provides:

The delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of exchange or other mercantile
documents shall produce the effect of payment only when they have been cashed, or when
through the fault of the creditor they have been impaired.

9. Manila Mining Corporation vs. Lowito R. Amor, et al., G.R. No. 182800, April 20, 2015, First 9
Division, J. Perez

Issue: What is the effect of the dishonor of a check used for payment of appeal fee with the
NLRC?

Answer:

● There was no perfected appeal since the posting of a provisional cash or surety bond
was not complied with. When the check was dishonored upon presentment for
payment, such rendered the tender thereof ineffectual.

10. GBMLT Manpower Services, Inc. vs. Ma. Victoria H. Malinao, G.R. No. 189262, July 6, 2015, 10
First Division, C.J. Sereno
 Issue: Can the NLRC accept the appeal bond posted through a current-dated check? - YES

What is the effect that the check was deposited to the bank account of the NLRC without
incident?

Answer:
● The posting of a bond for the perfection of an appeal from a decision of the labor
arbiter is required under Article 228 of the Labor Code. The requirement is fulfilled
when the employer is able to deposit with the NLRC an amount that is equivalent to
the monetary award adjudged by the labor arbiter in the employee’s favor, and that
shall subsist until the final resolution of the appeal.

● In this case, there is no question that the NLRC accepted the appeal bond posted by
GBMLT through a current-dated check. That check was deposited to the bank account
of the NLRC without incident. Furthermore, Malinao has never disputed the
sufficiency of the bond posted or GBMLT’s manifestation before the SC that “up to the
present, the cash bond posted x x x is still in effect and remains in the coffers of the x
x x NLRC and is susceptible to execution in the unfortunate event that this Petition
fails.”

● According to SC, the appeal of GBMLT has been perfected on time by virtue of its
compliance with the appeal bond requirement. SC noted that its payment of the
appeal bond through the issuance of a check was not even an issue before the NLRC.
The latter had given due course to GBMLT’s appeal without any indication of having
found any defect in the appeal bond posted.

11. Federal Corporation Vs. Luwalhati R. Antonio and Eliza Bettina Ricasa Antonino, G.R. No. 11
199455. June 27, 2018, Third Division, J. Leonen

Issue: Are checks legal tender so as to be covered by FedEx’s International Air Waybill
prohibition on “transport of money”?

HELD:

● NO. It is settled in jurisprudence that checks, being only negotiable instruments, are
only substitutes for money and are not legal tender; more so when the check has a
named payee and is not payable to bearer. The debts paid in a money market
transaction through the use of a check is not a valid tender of payment as a check is
not legal tender in the Philippines. A check, whether a manager’s check or ordinary
check, is not legal tender.

The Air Waybill’s prohibition mentions “negotiable instruments” only in the course
of making an example. Thus, they are not prohibited items themselves. Moreover,
the illustrative example does not even pertain to negotiable instruments per se but
to “negotiable instruments equivalent to cash.”

12. Rufina S. Jorge, Vs. Alberto C. Marcelo, et. al, and The National Labor Relations Commission 12
(Third Division), G.R. No. 232989, March 18, 2019, Third Division, J. Peralta

Issue: Are checks considered as acceptable security under Section 6 (c) of Rule VI of the NLRC
Rules on bonds?

HELD:
 ● No. Section 6 (c) of Rule VI of the NLRC Rules on bonds specifically excludes checks
as an acceptable security, thus:

Section 6. Bond - In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director
involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon
the posting of a bond, which shall either be in the form of cash deposit or surety
bond equivalent in the amount to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and
attorney's fees.

In case of surety bond, the same shall be issued by a reputable bonding company
duly accredited by the Commission and shall be accompanied by original or certified
true copies of the following:

(c) proof of security deposit or collateral securing the bond: provided, that a check
shall not be considered as an acceptable security

13. East West Banking Corporation, Vs. Victorias Milling Company, Inc, G.R. No. 225181, 13
December 05, 2019, First Division, J. Reyes, J. Jr.

Issue: Can a check still be considered a valid payment if the creditor does not refuse it as such?

Answer:

● A check can still be considered a valid payment if the creditor does not refuse it as
such.

Jurisprudence holds that, in general, a check does not constitute legal tender, and
that the creditor may validly refuse it as payment. Conversely, a check may still be a
valid payment if the creditor does not refuse it as such.

In the case at bar, East West Bank did not refuse the checks, rather, what was
refused was the exercise of VMC’s option to redeem. Hence, as East West Bank, the
creditor, did not refuse the checks as payment, the checks are still considered as a
valid payment.

B. Medium of commercial transactions

1. People of the Philippines vs. Roberto Tongko, G.R. No. 123567 June 5, 1998, Second Division, 14
J. Puno

Issue: What is the history of Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised Penal Code? Is a NI a medium of
commercial transaction?

Answer:

● Yes. a NI a medium of commercial transaction. The history of the law will show that
the severe penalties were intended to stop the upsurge of swindling by issuance of
bouncing checks. It was felt that unless aborted, this kind of estafa "...would erode
the people's confidence in the use of negotiable instruments as a medium of
commercial transaction and consequently result in the retardation of trade and
commerce and the undermining of the banking system of the country."
2. Carlos L. Tenenggee vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179448, June 26, 2013, Second 15
Division, J. Del Castillo

Issue: Does a promissory note facilitate credit transactions? Does a check used as a means of
payment in business in lieu of money for convenience in business transactions? How about a
cashier’s check?

Ruling:

● Commercial documents are, in general, documents or instruments which are “used

by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions.”
Promissory notes facilitate credit transactions while;
● A check is a means of payment used in business in lieu of money for convenience in
business transactions.
● A cashier’s check necessarily facilitates bank transactions for it allows the person
whose name and signature appear thereon to encash the check and withdraw the
amount indicated therein.

3. GE Money Bank, Inc. (formerly Keppel Philippines, Inc.) vs. Spouses Victorino M. Dizon and 16
Rosalina L. Dizon, G.R. No. 184301, March 23, 2015, Third Division, J. Peralta

Issue: Is a check a medium of payment in commercial transaction?

Answer:

● As provided by the Supreme Court in the case of Tolentino v. Court of Appeals, in which
the certificate of sale was registered with the Register of Deeds on April 2, 1969. On
March 31, 1970, the mortgagor consigned to the city sheriff a crossed check as
payment for the redemption price. The following day, however, the mortgagor issued
a stop-payment order against the crossed check purportedly to protect her rights and
to prevent the bank from encashing the check without returning all the properties
which it foreclosed and purchased. We upheld the mortgagor’s right to redeem,
opining that when the action to redeem was filed, a simultaneous deposit of the
redemption money was tendered to the sheriff, which was allowed under the Rules of
Court; that the check, as a medium of payment in commercial transactions, is too
firmly established by usage; and that it was not clearly shown that the stop-payment
order was made in bad faith

4. Devie Ann Isaga Fuertes, Vs. The Senate of Philippines, et. al., G.R. No. 208162, January 07, 17
2020, En Banc, J. Leonen

Issue: Why did PD 818 increase the penalty for estafa for the issuance of bouncing particularly
on the use of negotiable instruments as medium of commercial transactions?

Answer:

● If not checked at once, these criminal acts would erode the people's confidence in
the use of negotiable instruments as a medium of commercial transaction and
consequently result in the retardation of trade and commerce and the undermining
of the banking system of the country
● The increase in the penalty, far from being cruel and degrading, was motivated by a
laudable purpose, namely, to effectuate the repression of an evil that undermines
the country's commercial and economic growth, and to serve as a necessary
precaution to deter people from issuing bouncing checks.
C. Medium of credit transaction (Evidence of indebtedness)
1. Ernesto T. Pacheco and Virginia O. Pacheco vs. Court of Appeals, and People of the 18
Philippines, G.R. No. 126670 December 2, 1999, First Division, J. Ynares-Santiago

Issue: What are the elements of the felony of estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised
Penal Code?

● The essential elements in order to sustain a conviction under the above paragraph
are:

1. that the offender postdated or issued a check in payment of an payment

obligation contracted at the time the check was issued;

2. that such postdating or issuing a check was done when the offender had no funds
in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of
the check;

3. deceit or damage to the payee thereof.

Can one waive the negotiable character of the check and treat it simply as proof of an
obligation (evidence of indebtedness)?

● By mutual agreement of the parties, the negotiable character of a check may be

waived and the instrument may be treated simply as proof of an obligation. There
cannot be deceit on the part of the obligor, petitioners herein, because they agreed
with the obligee at the time of the issuance and postdating of the checks that the
same shall not be encashed or presented to the banks. 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. By their own covenant, therefore, the checks
became mere evidence of indebtedness. It has been ruled that a drawer who issues a
check as security or evidence of investment is not liable for estafa. Mrs. Vicencio could
not have been deceived nor defrauded by petitioners in order to obtain the loans
because she was informed that they no longer have funds in their RCBC accounts. In
1992, when the Vicencio family asked Virginia to place a date on the check, the latter
again informed Mrs. Vicencio that their account with RCBC was already closed as early
as August 1989. With the assurance, however, that the check will only stand as firm
evidence of indebtedness, Virginia placed a date on the check. Under these
circumstances, Mrs. Vicencio cannot claim that she was deceived or defrauded by
petitioners in obtaining the loan. In the absence of the essential element of deceit, no
estafa was committed by petitioners.

How material is the fact that the check was issued undated?

● 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).

Section 13. When date may be inserted. Where an instrument expressed to be

payable at a fixed period after date is issued undated, or where the
acceptance of an instrument payable at a fixed period after sight is undated,
any holder may insert therein the true date of issue or acceptance, and the
instrument shall be payable accordingly. The insertion of a wrong date does
not avoid the instrument in the hands or a subsequent holder in due course;
but as to him, the date so inserted is to be regarded as the true date.
 ● 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.

Section 14. Blanks, when may be filled. – Where the instrument is wanting in
any material particular, the person in possession thereof has a prima facie
authority to complete it by filling up the blanks therein. And a signature on a
blank paper delivered by the person making the signature in order that the
paper may be converted into a negotiable instrument operates as a prima
facie authority to fill it up as such for any amount. In order, however, that any
such instrument when completed may be enforced against any person who
became a party thereto prior to its completion, it must be filled up strictly in
accordance with the authority given and within a reasonable time. But if any
such instrument, after completion, is negotiated to a holder in due course, it
is valid and effectual for all purposes in his hands, and he may enforce it as if
it had been filled up strictly in accordance with the authority given and within
a reasonable time.

What is the effect of a stale check?

● A check must be presented within a reasonable time from issue. By current banking
practice, a check becomes stale after more than six (6) months. In fact a check long
overdue for more than two and one-half years is considered stale.

2. Benny Go vs. Eliodoro Bacaron, G.R. No. 159048, October 11, 2005, Third Division, J. 1
Panganiban

Issue: Are checks evidence of indebtedness?

Answer:

● Checks have the character of negotiability. At the same time, they may constitute
evidence of indebtedness. Those presented by petitioner may indeed evince
respondent’s indebtedness to him in the amounts stated on the faces of those
instruments. He, however, acknowledges (1) that respondent paid some of the
obligations through the coprax delivered to petitioner’s father; and (2) that
petitioner owed and subsequently paid respondent ₱214,000.

3. Spouses Antonio and Lolita Tan vs. Carmelito Villapaz, G.R. No. 160892, November 22, 2005, 2
Third Division, J. Carpio-Morales

Issue: Can a check prove a loan transaction that was required to be in writing under Article
1358 of the Civil Code (All other contracts where the amount involved exceeds P500.00 must
appear in writing, even private one)?

Answer:

● Yes. At all events, a check, the entries of which are no doubt in writing, could prove a
loan transaction.
● In this case, the lower Court misplaced its reliance on Article 1358 of the Civil Code
providing that to be enforceable, contracts where the amount involved exceed five
hundred pesos, must appear in writing since such requirement, it has been held, is
only for convenience, not for validity.

4. Concepcion Chua Gaw vs. Suy Ben Chua and Felisa Chua, G.R. No. 160855, April 16, 2008, 3
Third Division, J. Nachura

Issue: Is the check evidence of indebtedness?

 Answer:

● Yes, a check may be evidence of indebtedness and may prove the existence of a loan
transaction.

5. Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Monet's Export and Manufacturing Corp., et al., G.R. No. 4
184971, April 19, 2010, Second Division, J. Abad

Issue: Is a promissory note evidence of indebtedness?- YES

Answer:

● As ruled by the Supreme Court, the bank will of course present the promissory note to
establish the scope of the debtor’s primary obligations and a computation of interests,
charges, and penalties based on its terms. It must then show by the entries in its record
how much it had actually been paid. This will in turn establish how much the borrower
still owes. However, the bank does not have to present all the receipts of payment it
issued to all its clients. The original documents need not be presented in evidence
when it is numerous for it would be a great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the general result.

In the present case, Monet and the Tagles can dispute the bank’s billing statements
by proof that the bank had exaggerated what was owed to it and that Monet had
made more payments than were reflected in those statements. However, Monet and
the Tagles have consistently avoided stating in their letters to the bank how much
they still owed to it. But, ultimately, it is as much their obligation to prove this
disputed point if they deny the bank’s statements of their loan accounts.

In reverting back to Exhibit 39, which covers just one of many promissory notes that
Monet and the Tagles executed in favor of Land Bank, Monet still owed Land Bank 2.5
million pesos. Noting this, the Court rejected Exhibit 39 as basis for determining
Monet's total obligation, given that it undeniably took out more loans as evidenced
by the other promissory notes it executed in favor of Land Bank.

6. Emilia Lim vs. Mindanao Wines & Liquor Galleria, as Single Proprietorship Business Outfit 5
Owned by Evelyn S. Valdevieso, G.R. No. 175851, July 24, 2012, First Division, J. Del
Castillo

Issue: Can a check the entries of which are in writing prove a loan transaction? - YES

● The Court held that a check may be evidence of indebtedness. A check, the entries of
which are in writing, could prove a loan transaction. While Emilia is acquitted of
violations of BP 22, she should nevertheless pay the debt she owes. As the CA noted
that Emilia had never denied issuing the subject checks for value which, in
themselves constituted evidence of indebtedness.

If Emilia was acquitted of violations of BP 22 can she nevertheless be required to pay the debt
she owes? - YES

● Emilia can be required to pay the debt she owes. As may be recalled, the MTCC
dismissed the criminal cases because one essential element of BP 22 was missing,
i.e., the fact of the bank s dishonor. The evidence was insufficient to prove said
element of the crime as no proof of dishonor of the checks was presented by the
prosecution. This, however, only means that the trial court cannot convict Emilia of
the crime since the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
the quantum of evidence required in criminal cases. Conversely, the lack of such
proof of dishonor does not mean that Emilia has no existing debt with Mindanao
 Wines, a civil aspect which is proven by another quantum of evidence, a mere
preponderance of evidence.

7. Ting Ting Pua vs. Spouses Benito Lo Bun Tiong and Caroline Siok Ching Teng, G.R. No. 6
198660, October 23, 2013, Third Division, J. Velasco

Issue: Can a check, the entries of which are in writing, prove a loan transaction?

Answer:

● Yes, a check, the entries of which are in writing, could prove a loan transaction.

A check "constitutes an evidence of indebtedness" and is a veritable "proof of an

obligation." Hence, it can be used "in lieu of and for the same purpose as a
promissory note."

A check functions more than a promissory note since it not only contains an
undertaking to pay an amount of money but is an "order addressed to a bank and
partakes of a representation that the drawer has funds on deposit against which the
check is drawn, sufficient to ensure payment upon its presentation to the bank."

Section 24 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL): Presumption of consideration. –

Every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued for a
valuable consideration; and every person whose signature appears thereon to have
become a party for value.

8. Neil B. Aguilar and Ruben Calimbas vs. Lightbringers Credit Cooperative, G.R. No. 209605, 7
January 12, 2015, Second Division, J. Mendoza

Issue: Was a check sufficient evidence of loan transaction?

Answer:

● Yes, a check is a sufficient evidence of loan transaction. It constitutes an evidence of

indebtedness and is a veritable proof of an obligation.

9. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Vs. Agustin Libo-On, G.R. No. 173864. November 23, 2015, Third 8
Division, J. Peralta

Issue: Does the promissory note suffice to show credit transaction?

NO.

First, BSP failed to comply with the formalities required by law for a valid assignment of
credit involving real property. Indeed, a mortgage credit is a real right, thus, the formality
required by law for its transfer or assignment, i.e., it must be in a public instrument and
must be registered should be complied with in order to bind third person.

Furthermore, a closer look at the promissory note with trust receipt agreement does not
show in any aspect that the Rural Bank of H intended to make an absolute conveyance of
title over the securities it had deposited with BSP. What was given to BSP is lien for the
payment of the note pledged. There is nothing in the promissory note with trust receipt
agreement which partakes the nature of an assignment of credit. In fact, the provisions
thereof was even categorical in its use of terms, thus, suggesting that what the Rural Bank
 of Hinigaran and BSP entered into was a contract of loan where the promissory note and the
TCT of the Spouses Libo-on’s property were pledged as collateral.

Equally telling is the provision on the said promissory note with trust receipt agreement
which is inconsistent with the concept of assignment of credit.

Thus, in the absence of such absolute conveyance of title to quality as an assignment of

credit, the subject promissory note with trust receipt agreement should be interpreted as it is
denominated. The contract being that of a mere loan, and because there was no valid
assignment of credit, BSPÊs authority to foreclose the subject property has no leg to stand
on.

10. Juvy Desmoparan Vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 233598, March 27, 2019 , Third 9
Division, J. Peralta

Issue: Do promissory notes facilitate credit transactions? Is a check a means of payment used
in business, in lieu of money, for convenience in business transactions? Is a promissory note a
commercial document considering that, in general is "used by merchants or businessmen to
promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions."? If falsified, is Article 172 (1) of the RPC
violated?

Answer:

● Yes, promissory notes facilitate credit transactions.

● Yes, a check is a means of payment used in business, in lieu of money, for
convenience in business transactions.
● Yes, a promissory note is a commercial document.
● A promissory note, being a commercial document, when falsified constitutes a
violation of Article 172(1) of the RPC.

D. It is specie of property
1. Gemma T. Jacinto vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009, Third 10
Division, J. Peralta

Issue: Are checks by itself personal property? - YES

May it be subject to theft even if it bounced? - YES

Answer:

● Parsing through the statutory definition of theft under Article 308 of the RPC, there is
one apparent answer provided in the language of the law—that theft is already
“produced” upon the “taking of personal property of another without the latter’s
consent.”

● We have, after all, held that unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is deemed complete
from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no
opportunity to dispose of the same. x x x Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation of
one’s personal property, is the element which produces the felony in its consummated
stage.

● To be liable for theft, the RPC requires that the personal property subject of the theft
must have some value, as the intention of the accused is to gain from the thing stolen.
In this case, Jacinto unlawfully took the postdated check belonging to Mega Foam, but
the same was apparently without value, as it was subsequently dishonored.
 ● In this case, Jacinto performed all the acts to consummate the crime of qualified theft,
which is a crime against property. Were it not for the fact that the check bounced, she
would have received the face value thereof, which was not rightfully hers. Therefore,
it was only due to the extraneous circumstance of the check being unfunded, a fact
unknown to Jacinto at the time, that prevented the crime from being produced. Jacinto
is guilty only of an impossible crime because of the factual impossibility of producing
the crime.

2. People of the Philippines vs. Bernard G. Mirto, G.R. No. 193479, October 19, 2011, Third 11
Division, J. Velasco, Jr.

Issue: Are checks by itself personal property? May it be subject to theft or qualified theft?

● Yes, the checks are personal property which may be subject to theft or qualified
theft. The fund collections through checks payments—all issued payable to cash—
are personal properties belonging to UCC. These funds through checks were paid by
UCC clients for the deliveries of cement from UCC.

3. Anita L. Miranda vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 176298, January 25, 2012, First 12
Division, J. Villarama, Jr.

Issue: Are checks by itself personal property? May it be subject of qualified theft?

HELD:

● Yes on both.
● There was no doubt that the personal property taken by petitioner does not belong to
her but to Jefferson Tan. The subject of the crime of theft is any personal property
belonging to another. Hence, as long as the property taken does not belong to the
accused who has a valid claim thereover, it is immaterial whether said offender stole
it from the owner, a mere possessor, or even a thief of the property
● As for qualified theft, she was charged correctly as she was able to perpetrate the
crime due to her position in VCCI which gave her access to the joint venture account of
VCCI and Jefferson Tan, both of whom reposed trust and confidence in her.

4. Fernando M. Espino vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188217, July 3, 2013, First 13
Division, C.J. Sereno

Issue: Is a check considered personal property for purposes of complying with the elements of
estafa under Article 315 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code?

Answer:

● A check is considered personal property for purposes of the complying with the
elements of estafa under Article 315 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code

Paragraph 1(b) provides liability for estafa committed by misappropriating or

converting to the prejudice of another money, goods, or any other personal property
received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under
any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same,
even though that obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by
denying having received such money, goods, or other property.
 In this case, the Court ruled that personal property in the form of checks were
received by the offender who rediscounted the checks thus resulting to wrongful
encashment to the prejudice of KN Inc.

Thus, as checks may be deemed as a form of personal property, the same constitutes
an element for the purposes of complying with the elements of estafa under Article
315 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code

5. Supra Multi-Services, Inc., et al. Vs. Lanie M. Labitigan, G.R. No. 192297, August 3, 2016, First 14
Division, J. Leonardo-De Castro

Issue: Is the leaving of unused bank checks unattended on her desk even though she was
provided a safe/vault in which she was supposed to keep all pertinent bank documents (among
other infractions, ground for dismissal?

Answer:

● Yes, the respondent in this case was validly dismissed for willful breach of trust. She
already had administrative charges of previous acts of dishonesty or negligence
(including leaving unused bank checks unattended on her desk even though she was
provided a safe/vault in which she was supposed to keep all pertinent bank
documents; leaving the safe/vault unlocked), which form part of her employment
record and which the employer could also very well consider in finally deciding to
impose upon respondent the ultimate penalty of dismissal for her latest infraction.

6. People of the Philippines Vs. Joenil Pin Molde, G.R. No. 228262, January 21, 2019, First 15
Division, J. Del Dastillo

Issue: Was the element of taking of personal property with intent to gain proven beyond
reasonable doubt? If the accused is not the payee of the check (since it was the complainant
who is the payee) could the accused present the check to the drawee bank for encashment for
his own personal gain?

Ruling:

● The elements of qualified theft are: “(a) taking of personal property; (b) that the said
property belongs to ‘another; (c) that the said taking be done with intent to gain; (d)
that it be done without the owner’s consent; (e) that it be accomplished without the
use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; and (f) that
it be done with grave abuse of confidence.
● The prosecution miserably failed to establish the elements of the crime of qualified
theft. The prosecution failed to prove the crucial elements of taking of personal
property and intent to gain on the part of Molde.
● Subject checks were issued payable to Sun Pride; hence, Molde could not have
possibly presented said checks to the drawee bank for encashment for his own
personal gain. This fact was confirmed by no other than Sun Pride’s own internal
auditor, Victorillo.
E. Proof of Payment
1. Francisco Taquinod vs. Deputy Sheriff Rolando Tomas, RTC, Branch 21, Santiago City, A.M. 16
No. P-09-2660, November 29, 2011, En Banc, Per Curiam

Issue: Are checks proof of payment and so proof of violation of Section 2 (e), Canon III of the
Code of Conduct?

Answer:
● By accepting pay-offs from Taguinod, respondent violated Section 2(e), Canon III of
the Code of Conduct, mandating that Court personnel shall not –
Solicit or accept any gift, loan, gratuity, discount, favor, hospitality or service under
circumstances from which it could reasonably be inferred that a major purpose of the
donor is to influence the court personnel in performing official duties. (Emphasis
supplied)
From March to November, 1996 when City Star published judicial notices from Branch
21, for which respondent accepted 10 checks from Taguinod, respondent controlled
the distribution of Branch 21’s judicial notices among Santiago City’s publishers
because Madrid delegated this task to respondent (in violation of Section 2 of PD 1079
requiring distribution of notices by raffle). 9 It was in Taguinod’s interest, therefore, to
give “discounts” to respondent to influence respondent to keep assigning judicial
notices to City Star. The 10 checks Taguinod issued and respondent received speak
volumes of this convenient, albeit unethical, arrangement. Section 2 (e), Canon III of
the Code of Conduct was crafted precisely to punish court personnel who engage in
such practices.

2. Spouses Ricardo and Elena C. Golez vs. Meliton Nemeño, G.R. No. 178317, September 23, 17
2015, Third Division, J. Villarama

Issue: What is the effect of the possession of the respondent of the promissory note evidencing
his debt to the petitioner? Is it prima facie evidence of payment as provided in Section 3 (h) of
Rule 131 of the Rules of Court?

Answer:

● The possession of respondent of the promissory note evidencing his debt to petitioners
is prima facie evidence of the payment of the same as provided in Section 3(h) of Rule
131 of the Rules of Court which reads:

SEC. 3. Disputable presumptions. – The following presumptions are

satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other
evidence:

(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;

3. Melanie E. De Ocampo Vs. RPN-9/Radio Philippines Network, Inc., G.R. No. 192947, 18
December 9, 2015, Third Division, J. Leonen

Issue: How was the check represent payment so as to prevent her questioning the decision of
the Labor Arbiter?

● The check representing payment of the monetary award was deposited with the
Cashier's Office of the National Labor Relations Commission, Ocampo lost no time in
seeking to have the monetary award in her hands: just a day after deposit was made,
Ocampo was quick to file a Motion to Release the amount. Accordingly, Ocampo's
willful acceptance of the judgment rendered by Executive Labor Manansala is not only
something that may be implied from her omission or inaction. Rather, it is something
 explicitly affirmed by her own motions and submissions. Whatever doubt there was, if
any, as to her concession to the monetary award given her was dispelled by the
positive assertions and pleas for relief that petitioner herself made. Thus, no recourse,
whether in law or equity, leaves room for Ocampo to avail herself of the modifications
she seeks. The most basic legal principles dictate that Executive Labor Arbiter
Manansala's Decision—in all its aspects—has long attained finality and may no longer
be revisited. Principles of equity require that Ocampo be bound by her own omissions
and declarations.

4. Estate of Honorio Poblador, Jr. represented by Rafael A. Poblador Vs. Rosario L. Manzano 1
G.R. No. 192391. June 19, 2017, First Division, J. Perlas-Bernabe

Issue: How are the checks here used as proof of payment and so overcame the disputable
presumption provided in Rule 131?

Answer:

● Rafael categorically admitted that he did not even know who actually paid the taxes
to the BIR, and that Manzano's name did not appear in the documents pertaining to
the payment of the capital gains tax and documentary stamp tax. Rafael further
admitted that: (a) Moreland directly paid Metroland the P2,800,000.00 in check
although it did not actually see and was unaware to whom Moreland gave this check;
(b) it did not ask Moreland to issue the check for the payment of the taxes directly in
the name of the BIR; (c) it would not have dealt with Manzano had she not been
Metroland' s employee; and (d) it has several lawyers and an accountant at its
disposal, and its representative Rafael is, in fact, in the real estate business and is
familiar with brokerage transactions. This admission clearly contradicts the disputable
presumption under Section 3 (q) of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, i.e., that the ordinary
course of business has been followed, which petitioner adamantly relies on to support
its claim.

5. Jesus V. Coson Vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 218830. September 14, 2017, First 2
Division, J. Del Castillo

Issue: What is the purpose of the issuance of the check?

Answer:

● The checks issued in this case were intended for the payment of the loan obligation
of petitioner to private complainant and not merely to assure the latter that he
would not be holding an "empty bag" as concluded by the RTC.

6. Maribelle Z. Neri Vs. Ryan Roy Yu, G.R. No. 230831, September 5, 2018, Third Division, J. 3
Peralta

Issue: How was the check used as proof of payment?

Answer:

● The check was used as proof of payment when Neri deposited the same in her
account and issued a corresponding Acknowledgement Receipt without qualification
with regard to her authority to receive the said amount, or in what capacity she was
receiving it, as agent or seller.

7. Metroheights Subdivision Homeowners Association, Inc. Vs. CMS Construction and 4

Development Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 209359, October 17, 2018, J. Peralta

Issue: How much was the amount that the check was used to prove payment?
 Answer:

● In the present case, Metroheights Subdivision is entitled to award of actual damages.

Though it alleged that it spent ₱190,000 for the transfer location of tapping/change
size of the water service connection, which CMS Construction cut-off and disconnected
with the knowledge and consent of MWSS, only the amount of ₱161,541.85 was duly
proved by the checks that was paid by Metroheights Subdivision to their contractor
thus, this amount should be awarded. Actual or compensatory damages cannot be
presumed, but must be duly proved, and proved with a reasonable degree of certainty.

F. Evidence of Indebtedness
1. Westmont Investment Corporation vs. Amos P. Francia, Jr., et. al., G.R. No. 194128, 5
December 7, 2011, Third Division, J. Mendoza

Issue: Are promissory notes evidence of indebtedness (borrowings)?

Answer:

● Yes. But in this case, there is no promissory note validly and duly executed by
Pearlbank which would in any way serve as evidence of the said borrowing.

The Confirmation Advices which bears the name of Pearlbank as purported borrower
do not bear the signature or acknowledgment of Pearlbank or any of its officers. This
cannot prove the position of Wincorp that it was Pearlbank which received and
benefited from the investments made by the Francias.

2. Spouses Deo Agner and Maricon Agner vs. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 182963, 6
June 3, 2013, Third Division, J. Peralta

Issue: Does the possession of the promissory note with chattel mortgage strongly buttresses the
claim that the obligation has not been extinguished?

Answer:

● Yes, Possession of the Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage strongly buttresses its
claim that the obligation has not been extinguished.
● One who pleads payment has the burden of proving it; the burden rests on the
defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment.
When the creditor is in possession of the document of credit, proof of non-payment is
not needed for it is presumed.
● The creditor's possession of the evidence of debt is proof that the debt has not been
discharged by payment. A promissory note in the hands of the creditor is a proof of
indebtedness rather than proof of payment. In an action for replevin by a mortgagee,
it is prima facie evidence that the promissory note has not been paid. Likewise, an
uncanceled mortgage in the possession of the mortgagee gives rise to the
presumption that the mortgage debt is unpaid.
● When the existence of a debt is fully established by the evidence contained in the
record, the burden of proving that it has been extinguished by payment devolves
upon the debtor who offers such defense to the claim of the creditor.

3. Equitable Savings Bank Vs. Rosalinda C. Palces, G.R. No. 214752, March 9, 2016, First 7
Division, J. Perlas-Bernabe
 Issue: How was the promissory note used to document a loan transaction?

Answer:

●
4. Sps. Ramon Sy and Anita Ang, et al. Vs. Westmont Bank, et al., G.R. No. 201074, October 19, 8
2016, Second Division, J. Mendoza

Issue: Why is it that the check and promissory note were not considered as evidence of
indebtedness?

Answer:

● Petitioners specifically denied the genuineness and due execution of the promissory
notes, fully complying with the requirements of Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court.
Furthermore, Westmont failed to prove that it delivered the proceeds of the loan to
petitioners. The delivery of the proceeds of the loan by the lender to the borrower is
indispensable to perfect the contract of loan. As Westmont failed to prove that it had
delivered the loan proceeds to respondents, then there is no perfected contract of loan.

5. Anita Capulong Vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 199907, February 27, 2017, Second 9
Division, J. Peralta.

Issue: How are the promissory note and checks here considered as evidence of indebtedness?

Answer:

● The promissory note was considered as evidence of indebtedness since it stipulated

the principal amount, interest rate and the due date of the loan obtained by the
Spouses Capulong from De Guzman. In return, De Guzman issued a check which
amounted to the value loaned by Spouses Capulong. The receipt of the check signifies
that a loan was actually obtained by Spouses Capulong.

6. Bank of the Philippine Islands Vs. Amado M. Mendoza and Maria Marcos Vda. De Mendoza, 10
G.R. No. 198799, March 20, 2017, First Division, J. Perlas-Bernabe

Issue: How was the promissory note used as evidence of indebtedness?

Answer:

● Records evince that BPI was able to satisfactorily prove by preponderance of evidence
the existence of respondents’ obligation in its favor. Verily, Amado acknowledged its
existence and expressed his conformity thereto when he voluntarily:

xxx (b) executed a Promissory Note dated September 8, 1997 wherein he undertook to
pay BPI in installments of P1,000.00 per month until the remaining balance of his
obligation is fully paid.

7. FGU Insurance Corporation Vs. Sps. Floro Roxas and Eufemia Roxas/Sps. Floro Roxas and 11
Eufemia Roxas Vs. Rosendo P. Domingquez, Jr., Philippine Trust Company and FGU
Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 189526/G.R. No. 189656, August 9, 2017, Second Division, J.
Leonen

Issue: How were the promissory notes used as evidence of indebtedness?

● In this case, the promissory notes were used as evidence of indebtedness because
Philtrust Bank was able to release P1,557,200.00, covered by the promissory notes,
 which Spouses Roxas were not able to pay on their maturity dates. Under the terms
of the promissory notes, in case nonpayment at maturity, the Spouses Roxas further
bound themselves to pay:

1) 19% on the outstanding obligation until fully paid as penalty for delinquency; and

2) 10% of the promissory note amount as attorney’s fees and expenses of collection.

● The Spouses Roxas do not dispute the validity of these penalty charges and
attorney’s fees. Therefore, these stipula­tions in the promissory notes must be upheld
as the law between the parties, and are, thus, binding on them.

8. Philippine National Bank Vs. James T. Cua, G.R. No. 199161, April 18, 2018, Third Division, J. 12
Martires

Issue: What is the best evidence of the existence of the loan?

HELD:

● The promissory note is the best evidence to prove the existence of the loan.

A promissory note is a solemn acknowledgment of a debt and a formal commitment

to repay it on the date and under the conditions agreed upon by the borrower and
the lender. A person who signs such an instrument is bound to honor it as a
legitimate obligation duly assumed by him through the signature he affixes thereto
as a token of his good faith.

9. Sps. Felix A. Chua Vs. United Coconut Planter’s Bank, G.R. No. 215999, December 17, 2018, 13
Special Third Division, CJ Bersamin

Issue: Is there something on record the existence or exact amount of Jose Go’s indebtedness?
What type of instrument the Court was apparent looking for a possible evidence of
indebtedness?

Answer:

● There was nothing on record pertaining to the existence nor the exact amount of Jose
Go’s indebtedness.
● Apparently, the Court was looking for a form of negotiable instrument to evidence
the indebtedness.

10. Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi, G.R. No. 220826, March 27, 2019, Second Division, J. 14
Caguioa

Issue: How was the subject check considered evidence of indebtedness on the part of Choi as
against Park?

Answer:

● The check was considered as evidence of Choi’s indebtedness to Park in the principal
amount of P1,875,000.00. In Choi’s affidavit, he already made the judicial admission
that “the subject check was not intended by us to be in payment of the loan but to
serve merely as an evidence of my indebtedness to the complaint in lieu of a
 promissory note as I have duly informed the complainant of the lack of sufficient
funds to cover the same check when I handed over to him that check.”

11. Lara's Gifts & Decors, Inc., Vs. Midtown Industrial Sales, Inc., G.R. No. 225433, August 28, 16
2019, En Banc, J. Carpio

Issue: What is the best evidence of the transaction between petitioner and respondent?

Answer:

● The best evidence of the transaction between petitioner and respondent are the sales
invoices and the checks issued by petitioner as payments for the materials purchased.
The sales invoices show that petitioner, through its authorized staff or employees,
acknowledged receipt of the deliveries without protest. The sales invoices clearly
stated that petitioner "RECEIVED MERCHANDISE IN GOOD ORDER &
CONDITION."1Furthermore, petitioner admits issuing the postdated checks as payment
for the materials delivered. The postdated checks were subsequently dishonored for
being "drawn against insufficient funds" or for "account closed." Petitioner insists that
the checks were issued without valuable consideration since most of the materials
delivered did not comply with the required specifications. However, other than its bare
allegation that the materials delivered were substandard and of poor quality,
petitioner failed to prove or substantiate its claims. As found by the trial court, none
of petitioner's witnesses was able to present proof that the materials delivered were
substandard or of poor quality.

G. Guarantee for the Performance of a Future Obligation

1. San Miguel Corporation vs. Helen T. Kalalo, G.R. No. 185522, June 13, 2012, Second Division, 17
J. Sereno

Issue: Can checks be only for payment of a preexisting obligation? May the checks be likewise
issued as a guarantee for the performance of a future obligation? Is it possible that the
dishonored checks were issued merely to guarantee the performance of a future obligation?

Answer:

● Checks are not issued merely for the payment of a preexisting obligation. They may
likewise be issued as a guarantee for the performance of a future obligation.
● In this case, it was sufficiently established that the dishonored checks were issued
merely to guarantee the performance of a future obligation; that is, the payment of
the net value of the goods after the value of the empty bottles and beer cases
returned to petitioner were deducted from the gross value of the goods delivered to
respondent.

2. Esther Abalos Y Puroc, Vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 221836, August 14, 2019, 18
Second Division, J. Reyes, J. Jr.

Issue: Notwithstanding that the checks were merely used to guarantee a loan, did the
petitioner still committed deceit when she failed to make known that the checks were not hers
and were not sufficiently funded?

Answer:

● Yes. Notwithstanding that the said checks were merely used to guarantee a loan, the
fact remains that petitioner committed deceit when she failed to make known to
 Sembrano that the checks she issued were not hers and they were not sufficiently
funded. Sembrano will not accede to an arrangement of issuing unfunded checks to
secure the loan. It is against ordinary human behavior and experience for a person to
accept a check, even as a mere guaranty for a supposed loan or obligation, if one knew
beforehand that the account against which the check was drawn was already closed.
The check would not even serve its purpose of guaranty because it can no longer be
encashed.

3. Socorro F. Ongkingco and Marie Paz B. Ongkingco, V. Kazuhiro Sugiyama and People of the 1
Philippines, G.R. No. 217787, September 18, 2019, Third Division, J. Peralta

Issue: What is the effect that the checks were issued as a guarantee and upon the insistence of
the private complainant? Is it significant that the accused had deliberately issued the checks in
question to cover accounts and those same checks were dishonored upon presentment,
regardless of the purpose for such issuance?

Answer:

● It is of no moment that the subject checks were issued as a guarantee and upon the
insistence of private complainant Sugiyama. What is significant is that the accused had
deliberately issued the checks in question to cover accounts and those same checks
were dishonored upon presentment, regardless of the purpose for such issuance. It is,
therefore, clear that the real intention of the framers of B.P. 22 is to make the mere
act of issuing a worthless check malum prohibitum and, thus, punishable under such
law.

H. Proof in a Criminal Case

1. Francisco T. Inocencio vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 205760, November 9, 2015, 2
Third Division, J. Reyes

Issue: Why was the delivery of blank checks and failure to inquire about the status of the checks
help prove accused guilt? If the checks presented are in microfilm is it proof that the original
checks were returned to the account holder?

Answer:

● The delivery of blank checks and failure to inquire about the status of the checks help
prove the guilt of the accused because he is a bank officer and it is presumed that a
person takes ordinary care of his concerns and that the ordinary course of business
has been followed. He can be reasonably charged with knowledge of banking
procedures and the liabilities which may attach to him by reason of maintaining
current accounts.
● Yes, because in this case, the checks are microfilmed, and thereafter, the originals
are returned to the account holder, and the bank statements are sent to the account
holders on or before every 15th day of the month.

2. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo vs. People of the Philippines and Sandiganbayan/Benigno B. Aguas 3

vs. Sandigabayan, G.R. No. 220598/G.R. No. 220953. July 19, 2016, En Banc, J. Bersamin

Issue: Were the checks issued and encashed by accused evidence of an accumulation of
P352,681,646.00 from the CIF funds so as to convict them of plunder?

Answer:
 ● Although the checks issued and encashed served as evidence of the accumulation
P352,681,646.00 from the CIF funds, it was insufficient to convict them of plunder
because the prosecution failed to show that GMA and Aguas personally benefited
from the money and thus, it failed to prove the predicate act of raids on the public
treasury beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Norma C. Gamaro and Josephine G. Umali Vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 211917, 4
February 27, 2017, Second Division, J. Peralta

Issue: How are the checks here used as proof in a criminal case?

Answer:

● As to Josephine Umali’s civil liability despite her acquittal, the Court finds the latter
civilly liable to private complainant Fineza. It has been held that an acquittal based on
reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime charged does not necessarily
exempt her from civil liability where a mere preponderance of evidence is required.
Umali is part of the business transaction between Norma and Rowena Gamaro with
Fineza, as she too signed the Joint Solidary Account Agreement with Banco Filipino
purposely to enable them to open a checking account, and it was against this account
that Norma and Rowena drew the checks that they issued to guarantee the share of
Fineza from the proceeds of the sale of the jewelry. It follows then that Umali also
knows beforehand who owns the jewelry pledged with her M. Lhuillier Pawnshop
Branch.

4. Iluminada Batac Vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 191622. June 6, 2018, Third Division, 5
J. Martires

Issue: How are the checks used to prove estafa and violation of BP 22?

Answer:

● Jurisprudence has consistently held that in estafa under Article 315 2(d) the offender
must be able to obtain money or property from the offended party because of the
issuance of the check, whether postdated or not. It must be shown 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 other party. Stated otherwise, the
check should have been issued as an inducement for the surrender by the party
deceived of his money or property and not in payment of a pre-existing obligation.

In this case, Batac induced Frias into buying the checks at a rediscounted rate by
representing to him that she had enough funds in her account to cover them. In an
effort to support her misrepresentation and further persuade Frias to believe her,
Batac conveyed to him that she was a school teacher, presumably as a guarantee of
her good reputation. Batac also signed the postdated checks in Frias' presence,
presumably as a measure of good faith and an assurance that the signature therein
was genuine. All these induced Frias to part with his money.

Meanwhile, the mere issuance of a bouncing check is a violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Here,
the bank refused to encash the checks because the account is already closed.

5. Luis T. Arriola, V. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 199975, February 24, 2020, Second 6
Division, J. Hernando
 Issue: How was the check used as proof of implied admission of guilt under Section 27, Rule 130
of the Rules of Court?

Answer:

● Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states that in criminal cases, except those
involving quasi-offenses or criminal negligence or those allowed by law to be
compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as
an implied admission of guilt.

Initial attempts to reimburse through checks, coupled with the actual return of
money after the RTC issued its judgment of conviction, may all be considered as
unequivocal gestures to compromise and which can be measured as implied
admission of guilt.

6. Janice Reside Y Tan, Vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 210318, July 28, 2020, First 7
Division, J. Reyes, J. Jr.

Issue: How was the promissory note used as proof of the element of “intent to gain” in a felony
of qualified theft?

Answer:

● Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking of a thing. Reside admitted to
taking the funds and even agreed to pay the same by signing the promissory note,
revealing her intent to gain.

I. Proof in an Administrative Case

1. Jovita S. Manalo Vs. Ateneo De Naga University, et al., G.R. No. 185058, November 9, 2015, 8
Second Division, J. Leonen

Issue: How does the issuance of 16 bouncing checks considered work related and thus used as
basis to justify termination of employment?

Answer:

● The totality of the indiscretions imputed to petitioner reflects negatively on the

accountancy profession and indicates anything but professional behavior. These acts
run afoul of the first and most basic of the fundamental ethical principles of the
accountancy profession: integrity. Her having sanctioned unauthorized advances
demonstrates a violation of the second fundamental ethical principle: objectivity. Even
assuming that these acts do not evince a premeditated scheme, they nevertheless
manifest that petitioner failed to act diligently, that is, competently and with due care.

2. Atty. John V. Aquino Vs. Elena S. Alcasid, A.M. No. P-15-3361. February 23, 2016, En Banc, Per 9
Curiam

Issue: How were the checks became evidence in this administrative case?

Answer:
 ● The missing checks were under the custody of Alcasid. Thus, failure to account all of
the checks in her custody made her liable for the loss thereof and administratively
liable.

3. Alex Nulada Vs. Atty. Orlando S. Paulma, A.C. No. 8172, April 12, 2016, En Banc, Perlas 10
Bernabe

Issue: How were the checks used as basis to prove legal malpractice?

Answer:

● His issuance of the unfunded check knowingly violated BP 22, and exhibited his
indifference towards the pernicious effect of his illegal act to public interest and public
order.

Clearly, the issuance of worthless checks in violation of BP Blg. 22 indicates a lawyer’s

unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, shows such lack of personal
honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence, and
constitutes a ground for disciplinary action.

In this case, Atty. Paulma’s conviction for violation of BP 22, a crime involving moral
turpitude, had been indubitably established. Such conviction has, in fact, already
become final. Consequently, Atty. Paulma violated the lawyer’s oath, as well as Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, as aptly found by the IBP and, thus, must be subjected to
disciplinary action.

4. Buenaflor Car Services, Inc. Vs. Cezar Durumpili David, Jr., G.R. No. 222730, November 7, 11
2016, First Division, J. Perlas-Bernabe

Issue: How were the checks used a basis for a valid dismissal of employee?

● In this case, the respondent issued checks which were later altered, which was the basis
for his dismissal. It is crucial to point out that the questioned checks would not have
been issued if there weren’t any spurious purchase orders.
● It is only after the issuance of the approved purchase orders that petitioner’s suppliers
are directed to deliver the ordered goods/supplies, and from there, requests for
payment and the issuance of checks (through Del Rosario) would be made. Thus, being
the approving authority of these spurious purchase orders, respondent cannot disclaim
any culpability in the resultant issuance of the questioned checks. Clearly, without the
approved purchase orders, there would be no delivery of goods/supplies to petitioner,
and consequently, the payment procedure would not even begin.

5. Juan B. Hernandez Vs. Crossworld Marines Services, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 209098. November 12
14, 2016, Second Division, J. Del Castillo

Issue: Can checks be used as bait to tie the hands of employees in signing documents that
absolves employers from liability?

HELD:

● No. The execution [of the documents] cannot be tolerated as it amounts to a deceptive
scheme to unconditionally absolve employers from every liability.

Hidden behind these documents appears to be a convenient ploy to deprive petitioner

of all his rights to claim indemnity from respondents under all possible causes of action
and in all available fora, and effectively for nothing in return or exchange. Because in
the even the NLRC ruling is reversed, then petitioner must return what he received,
 thus leaving him with the proverbial empty bag. This is fundamentally unfair, and goes
against public policy.

Stated differently, the Court ruled against the employer because the conditional
satisfaction of judgment signed by the parties was highly prejudicial to the employee.
The agreement stated that the payment of the monetary award was without prejudice
to the right of the employer to file a Petition for certiorari and appeal, while the
employee agreed that she would no longer file any complaint or prosecute any suit of
[sic] action against the employer after receiving the payment.

6. Lourdes C. Rodriguez Vs. Park N Ride Inc./Vicest (Phils) Inc./Grand Leisure Corp./Sps. Vicente 13
& Estelita B. Javier, G.R. No. 222980, March 20, 2017, Second Division, J. Leonen

Issue: How were the two (2) checks deposited in Rodriguez’ account used in this termination of
employment case?

Answer:

● In this case, the two checks deposited in Rodriguez’ account were used to corroborate
the affidavit of Estelita which bolsters the fact that Rodriguez was not constructively
dismissed.

7. Luis S. Doble, Jr. Vs. ABB, Inc./Nitin Desal, G.R. No. 215627, June 5, 2017, Second Division, J. 14
Peralta

Issue: How was the check used as evidence that Doble voluntarily resigned?

Answer:

● A photocopy of Bank of the Philippine Islands manager's check in the amount of

P2,009,822.72, representing the separation benefit formed part of the evidence that
the complainant’s resignation was voluntary. If, indeed, the resignation of the
Complainant was involuntary, he could have easily sought legal counsel or advice right
after he submitted his resignation letter and left the company premises on 13 March
2012. Instead, he went back after 10 days and waited for his clearance to be processed
and his check prepared. He cannot claim that he was still under duress from March 14
to 22, 2012. The Complainant waited to be given his benefits first, and three (3) days
thereafter filed his complaint before this Office. This is hardly the mindset of a person
who is not in control of his life.

8. Gene M. Domingo Vs. Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., A.C. No. 5473, January 23, 2018, En Banc, 15
Per Curiam

Issue: How were the checks used as basis to prove legal malpractice?

Ruling:

● Respondent claimed that he intended to return the money to the complainant but the
court found instead that the respondent sent a stale check.

The above mentioned act, manifested respondent's dishonesty and deceit towards
the complainant, his client, in patent violation of Rule of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

9. Philippine Span Asia Carriers Corporation Vs. Heidi Pelayo, G.R. No. 212003, February 28, 16
2018, Third Division, J. Leonen
 Issue: How are the checks involved used to prove grounds for the termination of employee?

Answer:
The terminated employee altered check from its original amount of ₱20,804.58 to ₱820,804.58.
There were also apparent two instances of double disbursements. In which 2 checks were
issued in favor of a singles transaction. Another apparent anomaly was a discrepancy in the
amounts reflected in what should have been a voucher and a check corresponding to each
other and covering the same transaction with ARR Vulcanizing. Voucher no. 232550 dated
October 30, 2008 indicated only ₱l7,052.00, but the amount disbursed through check no.
2051313 amounted to ₱29,306.00
Here, the recorded issued checks were used to portray the anomaly done by the employee,
hence, was used as en evidence for the termination of the said employee.

10. Nicanor F. Malcaba, et al. Vs. Prohealth Pharma Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 209085. June 6, 17
2018, Third Division, J. Leonen

Issue: Can the check show that premium for the appeal bond was duly paid and that there was
willingness to post it?

Answer:

● Yes, while the procedural rules strictly require the employer to submit a genuine bond,
an appeal could still be perfected if there was substantial compliance with the
requirement.

In this instance, the National Labor Relations Commission certified that respondents
filed a security deposit in the amount of P6,512,524.84 under Security Bank check no.
0000045245, showing that the premium for the appeal bond was duly paid and that
there was willingness to post it. Respondents likewise attached documents proving
that Alpha Insurance was a legitimate and accredited bonding company.

Despite their failure to collect on the appeal bond, petitioners do not deny that they
were eventually able to garnish the amount from respondents' bank deposits.

11. Paulino Lim Vs. Atty. Socrates R. Rivera, A.C. No. 12156. June 20, 2018, Second Division, J. 18
Perlas-Bernabe

Issue: What is the effect on a lawyer if he issued a post-dated check that was eventually
dishonored and if he failed to settle his obligation despite repeated demands?

Answer:

● It has been consistently held that "[the] deliberate failure to pay just debts and the
issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be
sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are instruments for the
administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system. They are expected to
maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty,
integrity and fair dealing so that the peoples' faith and confidence in the judicial
system is ensured. They must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to
the bar, the courts and to their clients, which include prompt payment of financial
obligations. They must conduct themselves in a manner that reflects the values and
norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

12. HDI Holdings Philippines, Inc. Vs. Atty. Emmanuel N. Cruz, A.C. No. 11724. July 31, 2018, En 1
Banc, Per Curiam
 Issue: How were the checks used as basis to prove legal malpractice?

Answer:

● The checks were photocopied and presented by HDI Holdings and were used by the SC
as secondary evidence and was put together with Atty. Cruz’ written confession and
subsequent non-cooperation during the proceedings before the IBP, giving a
convincing conclusion of Atty. Cruz’ legal malpractice.

13. Dandiberth Canillo Vs. Atty. Sergio F. Angeles/Dr. Potenciano R. Malvar Vs. Atty. Sergio F. 2
Angeles/Leonora L. Hizon Vs. Atty. Sergio F. Angeles/Sheryl H. Custodio, et al. Vs. Atty.
Sergio F. Angeles, A.C. No. 9899/A.C. Nos. 9900, 9903-9905/A.C. No. 9901/A.C. No. 9902.
September 4, 2018, En Banc, Per Curiam

Issue: How were the checks used as basis to prove legal malpractice?

Answer:

● The checks proved legal malpractice because it showed that the respondent failed to
account his client’s money by not rendering an accounting of the amounts he
received, thus, violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

14. Judge Ariel Florentino R. Dumlao, Jr. Vs. Atty. Manuel N. Camacho, A.C. No. 10498, 3
September 4, 2018, En Banc, J. Gesmundo

Issue: How were the checks used as a basis to prove legal malpractice?

Answer:

● The checks were used as a basis to prove legal malpractice based on the glaring
difference of the highly questionable and dubious amount (P18,690,000,643.00) that
Atty. Camacho sought based on his version of the garnishment order that he drafted
himself in comparison to the actual amount of the judgment award based on the RTC
Order (P16,000,000.00 with 10% thereof as attorney's fee).

15. Antonio K. Litonjua Vs. Jerry R. Marcelino, A.M. No. P-18-3865, October 9, 2018, En Banc, Per 4
Curiam

Issue: How were the checks used as basis to prove administrative complaint?

Answer:

● As to Exhibit 16, it was revealed that ₱934,000 was raised by Antonio in which he
withdrew the sum of ₱250,000 from his savings account and the proceeds of 3 checks
issued by Benedict from his IE Bank account.Since the initial payment of ₱500,000 to
Justice Enriquez would not be due until his draft of the decision was finished, and it was
allegedly finished on August 1, 2001, there was no sense in withdrawing all that cash
of ₱934, 000 as early as July 24 to July 27, 2001 thus, the money must have been used
for some other purpose – not to bribe Justice Enriquez. For if that was part of the bribe
money, Antonio would, and should, not have withdrawn and encashed it prematurely.
He should have kept it in his savings account, to be withdrawn only in the exact
amounts and on the exact dates of the scheduled pay-offs to Justice Enriquez. Then,
there would have been a "paper trail" or a "money trail" to prove his alleged bribe
payments but he did not do that.

Atonio did not even report the criminal transaction to the police or the NBI so that the
extortionist could be entrapped.Instead, he agreed to pay the bribe, which made him
an accomplice in the crime. It was only when Justice Enriquez allegedly reneged on
 their agreement by amending the decision which he had penned, that Antonio exposed
the alleged bribery almost a year later.

Here, the ground for the removal of a judicial officer should be established beyond
reasonable doubt. Antonio’s evidence failed despite the serious nature of the
accusations and the attendant publicity. Therefore, the administrative complaint
against Justice Enriquez should be dismissed.

J. Proof in a Civil Case

1. Multi-International Business Data System, Inc. Vs. Ruel Martinez, G.R. No. 175378 5

Issue: How does the signature in a promissory note used as proof to authenticate a signature?

Answer:

● It was examined and analyzed along with other documents presented by Martinez
including the two letters and the chattel mortgage.

Citing its ruling in Jimenez v. Commission on Ecumenical Mission and Relations of the
United Presbyterian Church in the USA, the Court held:

It is also hornbook doctrine that the opinions of handwriting experts, even those from
the NBI and the PC, are not binding upon courts. This principle holds true especially
when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can
be determined by a visual comparison of specimens of the questioned signatures with
those of the currently existing ones.

Handwriting experts are usually helpful in the examination of forged

documents because of the technical procedure involved in analyzing them. But
resort to these experts is not mandatory or indispensable to the examination
or the comparison of handwriting. A finding of forgery does not depend
entirely on the testimonies of handwriting experts, because the judge must
conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature in order to
arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity, x x x (Citations omitted)

Examining and analyzing the signatures in the two letters, the promissory note,
and the chattel mortgage with company president Helen Dy's signature in the
certification, the Court found no substantial reason to doubt the authenticity
of the certification. The testimonies also supported the findings as Dy and the
one familiar with her signature said the signature looked like hers.

2. Fernando Medical Enterprises, Inc. Vs. Wesleyan University Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 207970, 6
January 20, 2016, First Division, J. Bersamin

Issue: Paragraphs 7 and 8 of a complaint alleged the issuance of 36 postdated checks but only 4
checks of those issued were paid, must these allegations in the complaint be specifically denied
in the answer? Are general denials done constitute ineffective or sham denials?

Answer:
 ● YES, Paragraph no. 7 stated that the petitioner had agreed with the respondent on
February 11, 2009 to reduce the balance to only P50,400,000.00, which the
respondent would pay in 36 months through 36 postdated checks of P1,400,000.00
each, which the respondent then issued for the purpose. Paragraph no. 8 averred that
after four of the checks totalling P5,600,000.00 were paid the respondent stopped
payment of the rest, rendering the entire obligation due and demandable pursuant to
the February 11, 2009 agreement. Considering that paragraphs no. 6, 7 and 8 of the
complaint averred matters that the respondent ought to know or could have easily
known, the answer did not specifically deny such material averments. It is settled
that denials based on lack of knowledge or information of matters clearly known to
the pleader, or ought to be known to it, or could have easily been known by it are
insufficient, and constitute ineffective or sham denials.

3. Sps. Romeo Pajares and Ida T. Pajares Vs. Remarkable Laundry and Dry Cleaning, represented 7
by Archemedes G. Solis, G.R. No. 212690. February 20, 2017, First Division, J. Del Castillo

Issue: Where a complaint is based on a contract stating, that if the cause of the default is due to
issuance of a bouncing check and the amount of such check shall earn same penalty charge
with additional 5%, make a complaint arising thereto on capable of pecuniary estimation?

Answer:

● Yes. Under Article 2226 of the Civil Code, the amount stipulated to be paid in case of
breach of contract or the penalty agreed upon by the parties is considered liquidated
damages, which makes it capable of pecuniary estimation.

4. William Anghian Siy Vs. Alvin Tomlin G.R. No. 205998. April 24, 2017, First Division, J. Del 8
Castillo

Issue: Is the issuance of two guarantee checks worth P4.95 million proof of authority to act for
and in behalf of petitioner?

Yes. From petitioner's own account, he constituted and appointed Ong as his agent to sell the
vehicle, surrendering to the latter the vehicle, all documents of title pertaining thereto, and a
deed of sale signed in blank, with full understanding that Ong would offer and sell the same
to his clients or to the public. In return, Ong accepted the agency by his receipt of the vehicle,
the blank deed of sale, and documents of title, and when he gave bond in the form of two
guarantee checks worth ₱4.95 million. All these gave Ong the authority to act for and in
behalf of petitioner. Under the Civil Code on agency, Art. 1869. Agency may be express, or
implied from the acts of the principal, from his silence or lack of action, or his failure to
repudiate the agency, knowing that another person is acting on his behalf without authority.

Agency may be oral, unless the law requires a specific form.

Art. 1870. Acceptance by the agent may also be express or implied from his acts which carry
out the agency, or from his silence or inaction according to the circumstances. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

"The basis of agency is representation and the same may be constituted expressly or
impliedly. In an implied agency, the principal can be bound by the acts of the implied agent.
"35 The same is true with an oral agency.
K. Basis of Finding Probable Cause in a Preliminary Investigation
1. Jessica Lucila G. Reyes Vs. The Honorable Ombudsman/Jessica Lucila G. Reyes Vs. The 9
Honorable Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines/Janet Lim Napoles Vs. Conchita
Carpio Morales in her capacity as Ombudsman, People of the Philippines and
Sandiganbayan/Jo Christine Napoles and James Christopher Napoles Vs. Conchita Carpio
Morales in her capacity as Ombudsman, People of the Philippines and Sandiganbayan/John
Raymund De Asis Vs. Conchita Carpio Morales in her capacity as Ombudsman, People of the
Philippines and Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 212593-94/G.R. Nos. 213163-78/G.R. Nos. 213540-
41/G.R. Nos. 213542-43/G.R. Nos. 215880-94/G.R. Nos. 213475-76, March 15, 2016, En Banc,
Perlas-Bernabe

Issue: Can the checks issued be basis for the finding of probable cause for plunder?

Answer:

● Yes, it can. Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, has been
defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime
has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. It is enough that
it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.

2. Jaime Dichaves Vs. Office of the Ombudsman and The Special Division of the Sandiganbayan, 10
G.R. Nos. 206310-11, December 7, 2016, Second Division, J. Leonen

Issue: Can the checks issued be basis for the finding of probable cause for plunder? - YES

Answer:

● The executive finding of probable cause requires only substantial evidence, not
absolute certainty of guilt. The Office of the Ombudsman correctly found probable
cause to charge Dichaves with plunder in conspiracy with the former President Estrada.

The probable cause against Dichaves was grounded on the following factual
considerations, among others:

(1) the contents of the second envelope;

Jaime or Abby Dichavez (sic) – P20M check dated 8 September1999 from Far
East Bank Cubao, Araneta Branch and aP189.7M Check dated 8 November
1999 all amounting to atotal of P210 Million
(2) the deposits in the “Jose Velarde” account;
(3) the circumstances leading to the acquisition by the Government Service Insurance
System and Social Security System of the Belle shares of stocks; and
Estrada, having influence and dominance over his close friends and appointees,
Arellano and Pascual, pressured the two to proceed with the purchase of stocks
from Belle Corporation. Ocier “handed [the check] over to Dichaves who, in
turn, deposited it to the ‘JOSE VELARDE’ account.” Ocier recounted in detail the
participation of Dichaves and [Estrada], from the planning and preparation for
the disposition of the shares of stock of Belle Corporation to the government,
to the giving/handing [to Estrada],” through Dichaves, of the
profit/commission from the sale.
(4) affidavits of Carlos Arellano, Federico Pascual, and Mark Jimenez.

Thus, the evidence indicates that the former President exerted influence over Arellano
and Pascual to push through with the transactions, and that the transactions pushed
through under that condition that the commission or profit would be given to the
 former President; . . . that it was Dichaves who orchestrated the consummation of the
transactions and received from Ocier the check representing the commission; and that
Dichaves deposited the check to the “JOSE VELARDE” account which was shown to be
that of the former President.

3. Edward Thomas F. Joson Vs. The Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. Nos. 197433 and 11
197435, August 9, 2017, J. Leonen.

Issue: How were the checks used to prove probable cause of violation of RA 3019?

Nueva Ecija Vice Governor Joson charged Agtay with violation of RA 3019. According to Joson,
the misrepresentations committed by Agtay (Provincial Trade and Industry Officer) caused the
issuance of a P1,272,000.00 check to Ryan Angelo Catering, received by Jocelyn Gervacio. It was
alleged that after the check was cleared, Jocelyn gave the proceeds of the check to Agtay, and
deposited the amount to Agtay’s account.

NOTE: The Ombudsman dismissed the case for lack of probable cause. The deposit and/or
constructive receipt of respondent Agtay of the proceeds of DBP Check remains uncorroborated
by a person with personal knowledge that the proceeds of the said check have been deposited
into an account of respondent Agtay, or by deposit slips indicating that such a deposit has in
fact been made. The Supreme Court upheld the Ombudsman’s decision.

4. Ramon "Bong" B. Revilla, Jr. Vs. Sandiganbayan (First Divsion) and People of the 12
Philippines/Richard A. Cambe Vs. Sandiganbayan (First Division), People of the Philippines
and Office of the Ombudsman/Janet Lim Napoles Vs. Sandiganbayan (First Division), Conchita
Carpio Morales, in her capacity as Ombudsman and People of the Philippines/People of the
Philippines Vs. Sandiganbayan (First Divsion), Ramon "Bong" B. Revilla, Jr. and Richard A.
Cambe/Ramon "Bong" B. Revilla, Jr. Vs. Sandiganbayan (First Division) and People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 218232/G.R. No. 218235/G.R. No. 218266/G.R. No. 218903/G.R. No.
219162, July 24, 2018, En Banc, J. Carpio

Issue: Can the checks issued be basis for the finding of probable cause for plunder?

HELD:

● Yes. The Court is persuaded that the prosecution has presented compelling evidence
that accused Revilla amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth by
repeatedly receiving from accused Napoles or her representatives or agents, money,
through accused Cambe, and in those several occasions, accused Revilla and/or Cambe
made use of his or their official position, authority, connections, and influence. This was
established by the testimonies of the witnesses and the documents they testified to
which, at this stage of the proceedings, [have] remained unrebutted, and thus, given
full faith and credence by the Court.

5. Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) Pag-Ibig Vs. Christina Sagun/Department of Justice 13
rep. by Sec. Leila De Lima, et al. Vs. Christina Sagun/Department of Justice Vs. Delfin S.
Lee/Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) Vs. Atty. Alex M. Alvarez/Home Development
Mutual Fund (HDMF) Vs. Delfin S. Lee/Department of Jusitce Vs. Delfin S. Lee/People of the
Philippines Vs. Delfin S. Lee/Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) Vs. Dexter L.
Lee/People of the Philippines Vs. Dexter L. Lee/Cristina Salagan Vs. People of the Philippines
and Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF), G.R. No. 205698/G.R. No.
205780/G.R. No. 208744/G.R. No. 209424/G.R. No. 209446/G.R. No. 209489/G.R. No.
209852/G.R. No. 210095/G.R. No. 210143/G.R. No. 228452/G.R. No. 228730/G.R. No.
230680. July 31, 2018, En Banc, J. Bersamin
 Issue: Can the checks and promissory notes be basis for the finding of probable cause in criminal
cases?

Answer:

● Yes, the checks and promissory notes can be a basis for the finding of probable cause
in criminal cases. Particularly in this case, the act of notarizing the checks and
promissory notes essential to the purported transaction was enough to establish
participation in the conspiracy. Their acts, taken collectively, would probably support
a charge of conspiracy, and suggest that they participated in the transactions with a
view to furthering the common design and purpose.

6. Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) Pag-Ibig Vs. Christina Sagun/Department of Justice 14
rep. by Sec. Leila De Lima, et al. Vs. Christina Sagun/Department of Justice Vs. Delfin S.
Lee/Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) Vs. Atty. Alex M. Alvarez/Home Development
Mutual Fund (HDMF) Vs. Delfin S. Lee/Department of Jusitce Vs. Delfin S. Lee/People of the
Philippines Vs. Delfin S. Lee/Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) Vs. Dexter L.
Lee/People of the Philippines Vs. Dexter L. Lee/Cristina Salagan Vs. People of the Philippines
and Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF), G.R. No. 205698/G.R. No.
205780/G.R. No. 208744/G.R. No. 209424/G.R. No. 209446/G.R. No. 209489/G.R. No.
209852/G.R. No. 210095/G.R. No. 210143/G.R. No. 228452/G.R. No. 228730/G.R. No.
230680. July 31, 2018, En Banc, J. Carpio

Issue: Can the checks issued be basis for the finding of probable cause for plunder?

Answer:

● No. There was no probable cause for syndicated estafa, but there was probable cause
for simple estafa. (Note: the criminal charge in this case was syndicated estafa and
simple estafa. There was no mention of plunder.) Based on the Court’s three
standards by which a group of purported swindlers may be considered as a syndicate
under PO No. 1689, in this case there was no probable cause for the filing of the
information for syndicated estafa because none of the said standards for determining
the existence of a syndicate was present.

However, the respondents made false representations that gave rise to probable
cause for simple estafa against them. Specifically, the respondents signed or co-
signed the checks or prepared the corresponding checks that were used to further
their acts of false representation. Their acts, taken collectively, would probably
support a charge of conspiracy, and suggest that they participated in the transactions
with a view to furthering the common design and purpose.

85 CASES IN TOTAL