Help Close

[jsiwisod]

Close

 

[🤖]

CASE DIGEST: ATILANO O. NOLLORA, JR. VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:
Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. (the petitioner) was charged with the crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City. The petitioner allegedly issued a postdated check to the complainant in the amount of Php 1,000,000 as payment for a loan, knowing that he did not have sufficient funds in the bank to cover the check.

During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence such as the dishonored check and testimonies from the complainant and the bank representative. The petitioner, on the other hand, denied issuing the check and claimed that he did not owe any money to the complainant.

The RTC found the petitioner guilty of Estafa based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court (SC).

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC and CA's ruling and held the petitioner guilty of Estafa. The Court based its decision on the following grounds:

1. Existence of a postdated check: The prosecution presented the dishonored check as evidence, which established the existence of the postdated check issued by the petitioner. This fact was not disputed by the petitioner.

2. Insufficient funds: The prosecution also presented evidence from the bank representative, who testified that the petitioner did not have sufficient funds in his account at the time the check was presented for payment. This established the petitioner's knowledge of the insufficiency of funds.

3. Deceit: The petitioner denied issuing the check and claimed that he did not owe any money to the complainant. However, the Court found this defense to be unsubstantiated and held that the petitioner's denial did not negate the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Based on the above, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner is guilty of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court affirmed the sentence imposed by the RTC, which includes imprisonment and payment of damages to the complainant.

CONCLUSION:
In the case of Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. vs People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court held the petitioner guilty of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court based its decision on the existence of a postdated check, the insufficiency of funds, and the petitioner's failure to substantiate his denial. The petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay damages to the complainant.