Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50611:gr-143959-2008&amp;catid=1502&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:18:15+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner v. NORMA BOOC, Respondent.
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated 7 June 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 58 (trial court) in Criminal Case No. CBU-46304 for estafa. The trial court found accused-appellant Norma Booc (Booc) guilty of estafa and sentenced her to imprisonment of 22 years of reclusion perpetuawith its accessory penalties, to indemnify the complaining witness P80,000, and to pay the costs.
This case stemmed from Booc's issuance to Msgr. Romualdo Kintanar (Fr. Kintanar) of Allied Bank Check Nos. PA 0844754 and PA 0844755 both dated 26 January 1997 for P50,000 each. On 10 December 1997, the prosecution charged Booc with estafa.
in the total amount of P 100,000.00 which were issued in payment of an obligation, but when said checks were presented to the drawee bank for encashment the same were dishonored for reason of "Account Closed" and inspite of repeated demands made upon her to make good the checks she failed and refused, and up to the present time still fails and refuses to do, to the damage and prejudice of Msgr. Romualdo Kintanar in the amount of P100,000.00 Philippine Currency.
The prosecution's evidence shows that the private complainant, Msgr. Romualdo Kintanar is the Parish Priest of the Guadalupe Parish Church, Guadalupe, Cebu City. [Booc] was introduced to [Fr. Kintanar] by his two friends and during that meeting [Booc] has shown her interest in helping the Parish. [Fr. Kintanar] was very much impressed by the gesture of [Booc]. About a month thereafter, [Booc] came back and told [Fr. Kintanar] about her financial problem and asked him to help her. As [Booc] was told by [Fr. Kintanar] that he has no money to help her, [Booc] asked him if he could secure a loan for [her] in the amount of P100,000.00. [Fr. Kintanar] was assured by [Booc] that there would be no problem about the payment because she has the means to pay the loan on due dates [sic] and [she] promised [Fr. Kintanar] to donate more to the church. To assure further [Fr. Kintanar] of her willingness to pay and means to pay, [Booc] issued to him two (2) postdated checks in the amount of P50,000.00 each (Exhs. "A" and "B") and another postdated check of P100,000.00 as donation to the church. Hence, [Fr. Kintanar] applied for a loan with the RC Lending Investor in the amount of P100,000.00, which was readily granted. The loan was payable for three (3) months at 5% monthly interest or the amount of P115,000.00 including the monthly interest for three (3) months. The amount of P100,000.00 was in trun [sic] delivered by [Fr. Kintanar] to [Booc].
It appears that the two (2) checks (Exhs. "A" and "B") are both postdated January 26, 1997, the date when the loan matured and when the said checks were presented for payment when due, the same were dishonored for the reason that the account of [Booc] was closed, per debit advise (Exhs. "A-1" and "B-1") with the annotation "Account Closed" (Exh. "A-1-A"). [Booc] was advised or informed about the dishonor of her checks and, despite the extensions given her, [Booc] failed to redeem or make good her checks or to pay the same. And [Fr. Kintanar] was forced to pay his loan with the [sic] RC Lending Investor.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused NORMA BOOC guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. Accordingly, the said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twenty-two (22) years of reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties, to indemnify the complaining witness the sum of P80,000.00 and to pay the costs.
In view of the penalty herein imposed, the accused is hereby ordered restored to the custody of the law, and, in case of appeal, the accused is hereby ordered confined in the National Bureau of Prisons thru the Bagong Buhay Rehabilitation Center (BBRC), Cebu City, pending the resolution of her appeal.
On 24 June 1999, Booc filed a Notice of Appeal appealing the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals.
On 21 July 2000, the Court of Appeals transmitted the records of Criminal Case No. CBU-46304 to this Court because the penalty imposed upon Booc is reclusion perpetua.
This Court, upon receipt of the records of the case, issued a Resolution dated 17 January 2001 requiring the parties to file their briefs. Considering that the records of the case were transmitted by the Court of Appeals to this Court, we directed the Administrator of BBRC to transfer Booc to the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City and the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women to confirm Booc's confinement within ten days from the date of receipt.
In our resolution dated 27 March 2001, we noted the letter sent by BBRC's City Jail Warden that Booc is facing charges of Estafa and Violation of BP Blg. 22 in two other courts in Cebu and that it is more practicable that she continue her stay at the BBRC. In the same resolution, we noted the withdrawal of appearance of Atty. Joel Enolpe as counsel for the accused and required Atty. Enolpe to comply with Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court within ten days from notice.
On 1 March 2002, Booc manifested that she wanted this Court to appoint a counsel de oficio for her defense. We appointed Atty. Aleli Angela G. Quirino as Booc's counsel de oficio on 27 May 2002. Booc filed her appellant's brief on 11 November 2002.
A: I repeat as a trustworthy [sic] that according to her she is very much willing to help the Parish. I really trust her from the very beginning.
A: Because of her willingness to give extra donation to the Parish I was impressed that she have [sic] the capacity to pay the loan.
A: She gave me 2 checks she told me that the checks were good.
(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 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.
All the elements are present in this case. First, Booc issued postdated Allied Bank Check Nos. PA 0844754-55 to obtain money from Fr. Kintanar. Fr. Kintanar would not have exerted efforts to obtain money to loan to Booc unless Booc issued him the postdated checks. Second, when the checks were presented for payment, the bank stated that Booc's account was closed. Repeated oral and written demands upon Booc to make good the checks prior to the filing of the present case did not produce any result. Booc made a partial payment of P20,000 to the secretary of Fr. Kintanar's counsel only after the filing of the present case. Booc further claims that there was no deceit on her part when she issued the postdated checks, and Fr. Kintanar was supposed to know that she had no money because she borrowed money from him. Booc's claim is untenable. Booc herself assured Fr. Kintanar that the checks would be good when presented for payment on due date. Finally, there was damage to Fr. Kintanar, who borrowed P100,000 to lend to Booc.
Considering Booc's advanced age8 and the length of time that the present case has been in our dockets, we set aside pro hac vice the procedural infirmities brought about by the erroneous certification and receipt of this case from the Court of Appeals9 and proceed to pronounce the penalty proper to Booc's crime.
Ist. The penalty of reclusion temporal if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed thirty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty shall be termed reclusion perpetua.
We accordingly modify the penalty imposed by the trial court and impose on Booc the penalty of imprisonment ranging from 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 24 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion perpetua.
WHEREFORE,we AFFIRM the Decision dated 7 June 1999 of Branch 58 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City finding Norma Booc GUILTY of estafa, with MODIFICATION. We impose on Norma Booc an indeterminate penalty of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 24 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion perpetua, and to suffer the accessory penalties of reclusion perpetua. We order Norma Booc to pay Msgr. Romualdo Kintanar P80,000 as actual damages, and to pay the costs.
1 Penned by Judge Jose P. Soberano, Jr.
7 People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 154159, 31 March 2005, 454 SCRA 635.
8 In a letter dated 22 July 2003 addressed to then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., Booc stated that she was 70 years old. Rollo, pp. 179-180.
9 According to Section 13, Rule 124 of The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, since the trial court imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, the Court of Appeals should have rendered judgment as the circumstances warrant but refrained from entering judgment, instead of immediately transmitting the records of the present case to this Court. After rendering judgment, the Court of Appeals should have certified the case and elevated the entire record for this Court to review. The necessity of an intermediate review by the Court of Appeals is emphasized by our ruling in People v. Mateo, G.R. NOS. 147678-87, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 640. Considering that the case was elevated to us in 2000, we should have remanded the present case and forwarded all pertinent records thereof to the Court of Appeals after the promulgation of People v. Mateo in 2004.
10 See Firaza v. People, G.R. No. 154721, 22 March 2007, 518 SCRA 681. See also Perez v. People, G.R. No. 150443, 20 January 2006, 479 SCRA 209 citing People v. Gabres, G.R. NOS. 118950-54, 6 February 1997, 267 SCRA 581; People v. Saley, 353 Phil. 897 (1998); Ong v. Court of Appeals, 449 Phil. 691 (2003).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.