Estafa by postdating a check
Bar Review Materials Career & Academics Classified Constitutional Law Etc.
Private respondent Cecilia Que Yabut in L-42847 was accused of estafa by means of false pretenses before the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, presided over by respondent Judge Jesus de Vega.
Instead of entering a plea, respondent Cecilia Que Yabut filed a motion to quash on September 1, 1975, contending that the acts charged do not constitute the offense as there is no allegation that the postdated checks were issued and delivered to the complainant prior to or simultaneously with the delivery of the merchandise, the crime of estafa not being indictable ,when checks are postdated or issued in payment of pre-existing obligation; and the venue was improperly laid in Malolos, Bulacan, because the postdated checks were issued and delivered to, and received by, the complainant in the City of Caloocan, where she (respondent Que Yabut) holds office. 2 (d), Revised Penal Code), penalizes the postdating or issuance thereof in payment of pre-existing obligation and that the Malolos court can exercise jurisdiction over the case, since the last ingredient of the offense, i.e., damage, transpired in Bulacan (residence of complainant) after the dishonor of the checks for lack of funds.
An opposition was interposed by the People, maintaining that the new law on checks (Rep. Judge Jesus de Vega quashed the information, as prayed for by respondent Que Yabut, on November 10, 1975 for the reason "that the proper venue in this case is Caloocan City and not Bulacan." Whether estafa lies for postdating or issuing a check in payment of a pre-existing obligation was not by respondent Judge.
(Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R. 4885)” A bought goods from B and issued an unfunded check in consideration of the goods received.
In the problem above, A can be charged for Estafa because he issued a check knowing it to be without sufficient funds to pay the goods he bought from B.
Knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and 3.
Section 14(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: "In all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the Court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or However, if all the acts material and essential to the crime and requisite of its consummation occurred in one municipality or province, the court of that municipality or province has the sole jurisdiction to try the case.The information, docketed as criminal case 1404, charges: That during the period from February 22, to February 26, 1975, in the Municipality of Malolos, Province of Bulcan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused Cecilia Que Yabut, as treasurer of the Yabut Transit Line, by means of false pretenses and pretending to have sufficient funds in the Merchants Banking Corporation, located and doing business in Caloocan City, prepared issued and make out Check Nos.CB-19035 B, CB-190396 and CB-190397, dated February 22, 1975, February 24, 1975 and February 26, 1975, in the total sum of P6,568.94, drawn against the Merchants Banking Corporation, payable to Freeway Tires Supply, owned and operated by Alicia P.Adopting our example above, it would appear then that A can also be charged for Violation of BP 22, apart from the estafa case, because BP 22 cases also cover issuances of bouncing checks for value received right there and then.It is Estafa when, among others, you issue an unfunded check with fraudulent intent in consideration of something of value you received.