This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-06-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| There is no false pretense or fraudulent act if a postdated check is issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation.[15] As the Court emphasized in Timbal v. Court of Appeals:[16] x x x In order to constitute Estafa under the statutory provisions, the act of postdating or of issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of the defraudation; accordingly, it should be either prior to or simultaneous with the act of fraud. In fine, the offender must be able to obtain money or property from the offended party by reason of the issuance, whether postdated or not, of the check. It must be shown that the person to whom the check is delivered would not have parted with his money or property were it not for the issuance of the check by the other party. Estafa is a felony committed by dolo (with malice). For one to be criminally liable for estafa under paragraph (2)(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, malice and specific intent to defraud are required. | |||||