Ang Tek Lian v. Court of Appeals [L-2516. September 25, 1950] Ponente: Bengzon, J.

Facts: On November 16, 1946, Ang Tek Lian, knowing that he has no sufficient fund therefor, drew a check payable to the order of cash against China Banking Corporation for a sum of P4,000. Thereafter, he went to the office of Lee Huan Hong at 1217, Herrah, Paco, Manila to ask the latter to exchange the said check with cash by alleging that he badly needed P4,000 but could not withdraw the said check from the bank since it was already closed. Relying upon appellants assurance that he has sufficient funds in the bank and because they used to borrow money from each even before the war and that the appellant owns a hotel and restaurant, the complainant delivered to him the sum of P4,000 in cash on that same day.

WON indorsement of the said check is necessary to hold Ang Tek Lian liable for estafa. Held: No. Under Section 9 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, a check drawn payable to the order of cash is a check payable to bearer and the bank may pay it to the person presenting it for payment without drawers indorsement. Consequently, the form of the check was totally unconnected with its dishonor so the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals that the check was returned unsatisfied because the drawer had insufficient funds and not because the drawers indorsement was lacking. Hence, Ang Tek Lian shall be liable for estafa because under article 315, paragraph d, subsection 2 of the Revised Penal Code, one who issues a check payable to cash to accomplish deceit and knows that at the time he had no sufficient deposit with the bank to cover the amount of the check and without informing the payee of such circumstances is guilty of estafa.

However, on November 18, 1946, when Lee Hua Hong presented the check to the drawee bank for payment, it was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Despite repeated efforts to inform the appellant of such dishonor, he could not be located anywhere until he was summoned in the City Fiscals Office in view of the complaint for estafa filed against him and that he has not yet paid the amount of the check.

In his defense, Ang Tek Lian argues that he should not be liable for estafa since the check has been made payable to cash and that he did not endorse it. This is based on the proposition that by uniform a practice check of so all drawn banks is in the Philippines dishonored. invariably

Issue: