Negotiable Instruments Case Digest: Pacheco v. CA (1999)

G.R. No. 126670 December 2, 1999
Lessons Applicable: Requisites of negotiability to antedated and postdated instruments (negotiable instruments)

May 17, 1989: Due to financial difficulties arising from the repeated delays in the payment of their receivables for the construction projects from the DPWH, the spouses Pacheco obtain a loan of P10K from Mrs. Luz Vicencio who owns a pawnshop in Samar.

Despite being informed by petitioners that their bank account no longer had any funds, Mrs. Vicencio insisted that they issue the check, as evidence of the loan and only a formality

Virginia Pacheco issued an undated RCBC check for P10K

she received P9,000.00 - 10% interest already deducted

Ernesto Pacheco was also required to sign the check o

June 14, 1989: Virginia obtained another loan of P50,000.00 from Mrs. Vicencio.

She received only P35,000.00 - deduct the previous loan of P10K as well as the 10% interest of P5,000.00

Virginia asked for the return of the 1st check but Mrs. Vicencio told her that her filing clerk was absent. Despite several demands for the return of the first check, but was told that it could no longer locate it

For the new loan, they required the same requirements in the issuance of the 3 more checks:

2 checks of P20K

1 check of P10K

June 20 and July 21, 1989: Virginia obtained 2 more loans:

P10K

P15K

Issuing 2 checks of P15k

All the checks were undated at the time given to Mrs. Vicencio

July 1989: The Pachecos were able to settle and pay in cash P60K out of P75K

August 3, 1992: Because the loan was unpaid when due, Mrs. Vicencio with her husband and daughter went to the Pachecos residence to persuade Virginia to place the date “August 15, 1992” on the checks

Despite being informed by petitioner Virginia that their account with RCBC had been closed as early as August 17, 1989

August 29, 1992: The Pachecos were surprised to receive a demand letter from Mrs. Vicencio’s spouse informing them that the checks were dishonored due to “Account Closed”.

RTC and CA: charged the Pachecos of estafa

relying on the allegation of the Vicencios that it is a payment for the jewelry

ISSUE: W/N the Pachecos should be charged with Estafa

HELD: NO. CA reversed

Estafa elements:

1. that the offender postdated or issued a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued - not present

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 - present

3. deceit or damage to the payee thereof - not preset

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