This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-03-14 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| All these elements are present in this case. The prosecution proved that the checks were issued in payment of a simultaneous obligation, i.e., the checks were issued in payment for the ring. The checks bounced when Elizabeth deposited them for the reason "Account Closed." There is no showing whatsoever that before petitioner handed and endorsed the checks to Elizabeth, she took steps to ascertain that Potenciana has sufficient funds in her account. Upon being informed that the checks bounced, she failed to give an adequate explanation why Potenciana's account was closed. In Echaus v. Court of Appeals,[4] we ruled that "the fact that the postdated checks...were not covered by sufficient funds, when they fell due, in the absence of any explanation or justification by petitioner, satisfied the element of deceit in the crime of estafa, as defined in paragraph 2 of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code."[5] | |||||