Recuerdo v.

People
GR No. 168217
June 27, 2006

FACTS:
Three separate Criminal Informations were charged against Joy Lee Recuerdo of Estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code involving 18 worthless bank checks. Private respondent Yolanda
G. Floro is engaged in the business of buying and selling of jewelry. She regularly conducts business at her
residence in Meycauayan, Bulacan. Accused Recuerdo became her customer in December 1993. A week
later, Recuerdo went to the house of Floro and purchased from her a 2.19 carat diamond round stone in
white gold setting worth P220,000 and one piece of 1.55 carat marquez diamond worth P130,000. For the
first jewelry, accused issued ten post-dated checks drawn against Unitrust Development Bank, six of them
became the subject of the criminal case. On the other jewelry, ten post-dated checks were also issued and
drawn against PCI Bank,six were the subject of the second criminal case. In February 1994, Recuerdo once
again went to Floro’s house and bought another set of jewelry which was a pair of diamond earrings worth
P768,000. She issued seven postdated checks, one for P168,000 as downpayment, and the other six
became the subject of the third criminal case. Upon presentment for encashment by said depositary bank,
the checks were all dishonored for having been drawn against closed accounts. With her pieces of jewelry
still unpaid, Floro, through counsel, made formal demands requiring Requerdo to pay the amounts
represented by the dishonored checks. However, Floro’s efforts to obtain payment only proved futile as
Requerdo continuously refused to pay the value of the purchased pieces of jewelry.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the contention of the accused that she acted in good faith can be used as a defense to acquit
her of the crime being charged.

RULING:
The petition is denied for lack of merit. Estafa through false pretense or fraudulent act under Paragraph 2(d)
of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, is committed by postdating
a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his
funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the
check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from
the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds
shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.

There can be no estafa if the accused acted in good faith because good faith negates malice and
deceit.However, the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused of the
crime charged. The trial court gave credence and probative weight to the evidence of the People and
disbelieved that proferred by the accused. Accused insistence of her good faith and her reliance on the
ruling of this Court in the Ojeda case were raised as a mere afterthought in a last ditch effort to secure her
acquittal, as these arguments were invoked only in her motion for reconsideration of the CA decision. When
the postdated checks issued by petitioner were dishonored by the drawee banks and the private
complainant made demands for her to pay the amounts of the checks, she intransigently refused to pay; she
insisted that she issued and delivered the postdated checks to the private complainant after the subject
pieces of jewelry had been delivered to her. Thus, the CA ruling is affirmed.
Fukuzume v. People
GR No. 143647
November 11, 2005

FACTS:
Private complainant Javier Ng Yu (Yu) is a businessman engaged in buying and selling aluminum scrap
wires. Sometime in July 1991, Yu, accompanied by a friend, Mr. Jovate, who was the vice-president of
Manila Electric Company, went to the house of herein accused-appellant Yusuke Fukuzume. Jovate
introduced Fukuzume to Yu telling the latter that Fukuzume is from Furukawa Electric Corporation and that
he has at his disposal aluminum scrap wires. Fukuzume confirmed this information and told Yu that the
scrap wires belong to Furukawa but they are under the care of National Power Corporation. Believing
Fukuzumes representation to be true, Yu agreed to buy the aluminum scrap wires from Fukuzume. The
initial agreed purchase price was P200,000.00. Yu gave Fukuzume sums of money on various dates which
eventually totaled P290,000.00. Fukuzume gave Yu two certifications to prove that the aluminum scrap
wires are ineed owned by Furukawa, purportedly issued by NAPOCOR and signed by its legal counsel by
the name of R. Y. Rodriguez.

At the time that Fukuzume gave Yu the second certification, he asked money from the latter telling him that it
shall be given as gifts to some of the people in NAPOCOR. Yu gave Fukuzume money and, in exchange,
the latter issued two checks, one for P100,000.00 and the other for P34,000.00. However, when Yu
deposited the checks, they were dishonored on the ground that the account from which the checks should
have been drawn is already closed. Yu called up Fukuzume to inform him that the checks bounced.
Fukuzume instead told him not to worry because in one or two weeks he will give Yu the necessary
authorization to enable him to retrieve the aluminum scrap wires from NAPOCOR. Fukuzume agreed to
accompany Yu when the latter is going to take the aluminum scrap wires from the NAPOCOR compound.
When Yu arrived at the NAPOCOR compound on the scheduled date, Fukuzume was nowhere to be found.
The people from NAPOCOR did not honor the authorization letter issued by Furukawa. Unable to get the
aluminum scrap wires, Yu talked to Fukuzume and asked from the latter the refund of the money he paid him,
but he failed to comply with his undertaking.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the offense charged.

RULING:
The Court agreed with the contention of accused. The RTC Makati has no jurisdiction. With respect to the
sworn statement of Yu, which was presented in evidence by the prosecution, it is clear that he alleged
therein that he gave Fukuzume the amount of P50,000.00 at the Intercontinental Hotel in Makati. However,
the court agree with Fukuzumes contention that Yu testified during his direct examination that he gave the
amount of P50,000.00 to Fukuzume in the latters house. Settled is the rule that whenever there is
inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater
weight considering that affidavits taken ex parte are inferior to testimony given in court, the former being
almost invariably incomplete and oftentimes inaccurate. More importantly, the court find nothing in the direct
or cross-examination of Yu to establish that he gave any money to Fukuzume or transacted business with
him with respect to the subject aluminum scrap wires inside or within the premises of the Intercontinental
Hotel in Makati, or anywhere in Makati for that matter. Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of
jurisdiction. In the present case, the criminal information against Fukuzume was filed with and tried by the
RTC of Makati. He was charged with estafa as defined under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised
Penal Code.

The prosecution failed to prove that Fukuzume committed the crime of estafa in Makati or that any of the
essential ingredients of the offense took place in the said city. Hence, the judgment of the trial court
convicting Fukuzume of the crime of estafa should be set aside for want of jurisdiction, without prejudice,
however, to the filing of appropriate charges with the court of competent jurisdiction.