Like us on Facebook

Please wait..10 Seconds Cancel

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

  • Moreover, a check must be presented within a reasonable time from issue.

    • By current banking practice, a check becomes stale after more than 6 months - here 3 years

  • Pacheco still have an outstanding obligation of P15K in favor of Mrs. Vicencio