GR No L-68589-90

Paulino Chang vs Intermediate Appellate Court

GR No L-68589-90  December 29, 1986

Facts:

            Chang was charged against violation of Bouncing Checks Law and for Estafa under Article 315 of the RPC. It was alleged that Chang, by means of false manifestation and fraudulent representations as a businessman specializing in the importation of machineries and farm implements assured Reaport of the investments should he so desire, succeeded in inducing Reaport to invest. Chang issued and delivered to Reaport BPI check with the assurance that the same was well-funded, knowing fully well that the same was not. The said check was dishonored when Reaport proceeded to encash the same.

            RTC found Chang guilty and the IAC affirmed the RTC decision.

Issue:

            WON Chang was guilty of violation against Bouncing Checks Law

Held:

            There is no question that the check issued by Chang bounced for insufficiency of funds, so that he should be guilty of violation of BP Blg 22. The drawee bank’s statement of accounts respecting that of appellant would indicate that the amount of the account issued with the check had insufficient balance to fund the same.

            The defense that the check was issued as a gambling check for money lost at gambling, hence, illegal and void from the very beginning lacks credence. Chang issues the check in payment of an obligation to return the money he got from Reaport, including profit. It was not by way of guaranteeing Reaport’s investment. It was the inducement that convinced Reaport of a sure return of his money plus the profit promised. The gambling debt theory is characterized with circumstances doubly hard to believe.

            Hence, Chang was found guilty of the violation against Bouncing Checks Law.