1.

REVISED PENAL CODE

Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code; elements. In order to constitute
estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, the act of postdating or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation must be the efcient cause of the defraudation. This means that the
ofender must be able to obtain money or property from the ofended party by reason of the issuance
of the check, whether dated or postdated. In other words, the Prosecution must show 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 ofender. The essential elements of this crime are the following: (a)
a check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check is issued;
(b) lack or insufciency of funds to cover the check; and (c) damage to the payee thereof. People of
the Philippines v. Gilbert Reyes Wagas, G.R. No. 157943, September 4, 2013.
Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code; what the law punishes is fraud
or deceit not the mere issuance of a worthless chec!. Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the
Revised Penal Code; what the law punishes is fraud or deceit, not the mere issuance of a worthless
check. In this case, the Prosecution established that Ligaray had released the goods to Caada
because of the postdated check the latter had given to him; and that the check was dishonored when
presented for payment because of the insufciency of funds. In every criminal prosecution, however,
the identity of the ofender, like the crime itself, must be established by proof beyond reasonable
doubt. In that regard, the Prosecution did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused
Wagas who had defrauded Ligaray by issuing the check. Firstly, Ligaray expressly admitted that he
did not personally meet the person with whom he was transacting over the telephone. Even after the
dishonor of the check, Ligaray did not personally see and meet whoever he had dealt with and to
whom he had made the demand for payment, and that he had talked with him only over the
telephone. Secondly, the check delivered to Ligaray was made payable to cash this type of check
was payable to the bearer and could be negotiated by mere delivery without the need of an
indorsement. This rendered it highly probable that Wagas had issued the check not to Ligaray, but to
somebody else like Caada, his brother-in-law, who then negotiated it to Ligaray. Relevantly, Ligaray
confrmed that he did not himself see or meet Wagas at the time of the transaction and thereafter,
and expressly stated that the person who signed for and received the stocks of rice was Caada. It
bears stressing that the accused, to be guilty of estafa as charged, must have used the check in
order to defraud the complainant. What the law punishes is the fraud or deceit, not the mere
issuance of the worthless check. Wagas could not be held guilty of estafa simply because he had
issued the check used to defraud Ligaray. The proof of guilt must still clearly show that it had been
Wagas as the drawer who had defrauded Ligaray by means of the check. Thus, considering that the
circumstances of the identifcation of Wagas as the person who transacted on the rice did not
preclude a reasonable possibility of mistake, the proof of guilt did not measure up to the standard of
proof beyond reasonable doubt demanded in criminal cases.People of the Philippines v. Gilbert
Reyes Wagas, G.R. No. 157943, September 4, 2013.