G.R. No. Nos.

101127-31 November 18, 1993

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CRESENCIA C. REYES, Accused-Appellant.

The appellant has instituted this proceeding for the reversal of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila
dated March 12, 1991, convicting her of estafa and violation of BP 22
RTC Manila- Lorie Garcia (complainant) is a rice dealer wherein she had a business transaction with cresencia
reyes
with the said transactions, cresencia reyes issued 6 checks, but the 3 of the checks was returned garcia due to
insufficient funds, subsequently garcia notified reyes and the latter promised to pay the total value, despite repeated
demands she failed to make good the checks or to replace them with cash
After the prosecution had rested its case, Reyes manifested through her counsel that she would file a demurrer to
evidence. She did not do so during the 10-day period allowed her, whereupon the trial court, on motion of the
prosecution, declared the cases submitted for decision. Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration, Reyes,
assisted by her counsel, submitted a waiver of appearance.
Subsequently the RTC disposed it decision stating that Reyes is guilty of violating BP 22
in the appeallants brief it stated that the RTC erred in its rulling, contending that:

(1) In convicting Reyes of estafa and violation of BP 22 when on the face of the evidence itself it is
clear that the issuance of the checks in question was involved in a credit transaction and that the said
checks were issued by the latter as guarantee for the payment of her civil obligation to the
complainant;

(2) In holding her guilty of estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code when there was
no deceit employed by her in the issuance of the checks in question;

(3) In holding that there was sufficient evidence her to justify her conviction for estafa under Art. 315,
par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code and for violation of BP 22; and

(4) In convicting her for the crime of estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code for
having issued a bad check, even if the check had been issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation.

The Supreme Court after deliberating on the above assignment of errors and the briefs submitted by the parties, finds
for the People.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
We re-affirm at the outset the established doctrine that:
While the filing of the two sets of Information under the provisions of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 and under
the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, on estafa, may refer to identical acts committed by the
petitioner, the prosecution thereof cannot be limited to one offense, because a single criminal act may give
rise to a multiplicity of offenses and where there is variance or differences between the elements of an offense
in one law and another law as in the case at bar there will be no double jeopardy because what the rule on
double jeopardy prohibits refers to identity of elements in the two (2) offenses. Otherwise stated, prosecution
for the same act is not prohibited. What is forbidden is prosecution for the same offense. Hence, the mere
filing of the two (2) sets of information does not itself give rise to double jeopardy (People v. Miraflores, 115
SCRA 570). 7chanrobles virtual law library
The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is
dishonored upon its presentment for payment. The law has made the mere act of issuing a bad check a malum prohibitum,
an act proscribed by the legislature for being deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare
The Court notes the following observations of the trial court on the personality of the appellant:
Accused, past 50, is a physically handicapped lady whose height is barely two (2) feet. In fact, whenever she
came to court, she was always assisted by one or two companions. But she is well educated and speaks
English fluently. The Court discerns that it is this unique combination of bizarre physical make-up and
seeming trustworthiness which led others, like herein complainant, to repose their confidence in her. Her
counsel manifested that she is also facing similar charges in other branches of this Court.