In Goretti Ong v. People, the Supreme Court overturned Goretti Ong’s conviction for Estafa, emphasizing the crucial element of ‘notice of dishonor’ when dealing with bounced checks. The Court held that without proof that Ong received notice that her checks bounced due to insufficient funds, the presumption of deceit necessary for an Estafa conviction cannot stand. This ruling underscores the prosecution’s burden to prove this notice beyond a reasonable doubt, safeguarding individuals from potential wrongful convictions based on unintentional oversight rather than proven deceit. This decision protects individuals from Estafa charges related to bounced checks, requiring proof that the accused was indeed notified and failed to act.

Dishonored Checks and Disputed Deceit: Can Estafa Charges Stand Without Proof of Notice?

Goretti Ong faced charges of Estafa for issuing checks to Rosa Cabuso, her jewelry supplier, which later bounced due to a closed account. While the trial court convicted Ong, it did so under the premise of ‘false pretenses’ (Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code), arguing that Ong falsely represented her ability to pay. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the charge against Ong stemmed from issuing bouncing checks, falling under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) instead. This distinction is critical because paragraph 2(d) specifically addresses cases where a check is postdated or issued without sufficient funds.

The Revised Penal Code defines Estafa as:

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). – Any person who shall defraud another . . .

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
a) By using a fictitious name or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of similar deceits.
(a) 2(d) 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 this 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.

Crucially, this paragraph includes a stipulation: failure to cover the check within three days of receiving notice of dishonor serves as prima facie evidence of deceit. The Court noted that the Information against Ong explicitly alleged that she issued checks knowing she had no funds and failed to fund them despite notice of dishonor. Building on this principle, the Supreme Court highlighted the significance of proving that the accused received notice of the dishonored check. This notice is indispensable for establishing deceit, an essential element of Estafa in bouncing check cases.

The absence of proof regarding this notice undermines the presumption of deceit. Without this evidence, knowledge of insufficient funds cannot be presumed, which could negate the charge of Estafa. The Court reinforced this view by citing the 2004 case of People v. Ojeda, which emphatically states that notice of dishonor is mandatory for prosecution under both Article 315 par. 2(d) and Sec. 2 of BP 22. The Court made clear that the failure to provide evidence of notice of dishonor meant the charge against Ong, under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) cannot be sustained.

Although one check did have proof of notice, the court acknowledged the partial payments made by Ong as a sign of good faith. The prosecution itself confirmed that Ong had paid a considerable sum toward the total debt. Given that the estafa is a malum in se, meaning that the intent must be inherently wrong, good faith and lack of criminal intent is hard to ignore. For this reason, the petition was granted.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Goretti Ong could be convicted of Estafa when the prosecution failed to prove she received notice that her checks were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The Supreme Court emphasized that such notice is a crucial element for establishing deceit under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code.
What is ‘notice of dishonor’ and why is it important?	‘Notice of dishonor’ is formal notification to the check issuer that the check was not honored by the bank due to insufficient funds or a closed account. This notice is crucial because it establishes the issuer’s awareness of the issue and provides an opportunity to rectify it, which bears on their intent to defraud.
Under what article of the Revised Penal Code was Ong originally charged?	Ong was charged with Estafa, with the information suggesting a violation under Article 315, paragraph 2(d), which pertains to issuing checks without sufficient funds. The trial court, however, convicted her under Article 315, paragraph 2(a), concerning Estafa through false pretenses.
How did the Court of Appeals rule on the trial court’s decision?	The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s conviction but modified the penalty and indemnity. However, the Supreme Court later reversed this decision, acquitting Ong of the crime.
What was the significance of the partial payments made by Ong?	The partial payments made by Ong were viewed by the Court as evidence of her good faith and lack of criminal intent. These payments suggested that Ong intended to fulfill her obligations, which contradicts the element of deceit required for an Estafa conviction.
What happens to Ong’s civil liability after the acquittal?	Despite the acquittal on the criminal charge, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision bearing on Ong’s civil liability. This means Ong is still obligated to compensate Rosa Cabuso for the amount of the dishonored checks, reinforcing that civil obligations can exist independently of criminal culpability.
Can a person be convicted of Estafa for a bounced check without proof of intent to defraud?	No, intent to defraud is a critical element of Estafa. If the bounced check was due to an oversight or a genuine mistake and there is no evidence of intent to deceive, it would be difficult to secure an Estafa conviction, especially if the issuer makes a good-faith effort to rectify the situation.
What is the key takeaway from this case for those who issue checks?	The key takeaway is the importance of maintaining sufficient funds in your account when issuing checks and promptly addressing any dishonor notices received. This proactive approach can help prevent accusations of Estafa and demonstrate good faith.

This case serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements for proving Estafa in bouncing check cases, particularly the necessity of demonstrating that the accused received notice of the dishonor. The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the significance of protecting individuals from potential wrongful convictions due to lack of evidence. This ensures that only those who genuinely intend to deceive are held criminally liable, reinforcing principles of fairness in commercial transactions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Goretti Ong v. People, G.R. No. 165275, September 23, 2008