In the case of LAND
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LAMBERTO C. PEREZ, NESTOR C. KUN, MA. ESTELITA P.
ANGELES-PANLILIO, and NAPOLEON O. GARCIA, G.R. No. 166884, June 13, 2012,
the Supreme Court held that “the law does not singularly seek to enforce
payment of the loan, as there can be no violation of the right against
imprisonment for non-payment of a debt”.
Sec.
20, Art. III, Bill of Rights, of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll
tax”.
In the case of BETTY GABIONZA and ISABELITA TAN,
COURT OF APPEALS, LUKE ROXAS and EVELYN NOLASCO, G.R. No. 161057,
September 12, 2008, the Supreme Court held that nonpayment of a LOAN does not give rise to
criminal liability for estafa through misappropriation or conversion. Thus:
“To the benefit of private respondents, the
Court of Appeals ruled, citing Sesbreno
v. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 671 (1995), that the subject transactions are akin to money market
placements which partake the nature of a loan, the non-payment of which does
not give rise to criminal liability for estafa. X x x. Sesbreno affirmed
that a money market transaction
partakes the nature of a loan and therefore nonpayment thereof would not give
rise to criminal liability for estafa through misappropriation or conversion. X
x x.
Indeed, Sesbreno explains: In money market placement, the investor
is a lender who loans his money to a borrower through a middleman or dealer.
Petitioner here loaned his money to a borrower through Philfinance. When the
latter failed to deliver back petitioner's placement with the corresponding
interest earned at the maturity date, the liability incurred by Philfinance was
a civil one. X x x.”
The case of ELVIRA LATEO y ELEAZAR,
FRANCISCO ELCA y ARCAS, and BARTOLOME BALDEMOR yMADRIGAL vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 161651, June 8,
2o11, defines FRAUD as follows:
“In Alcantara v. Court of Appeals, 462 Phil. 72, 88-89
(2003), this Court, citing People v. Balasa, G.R. Nos. 106357
& 108601-02, September 3, 1998, 295 SCRA 49. explained the meaning
of fraud and deceit, viz.:
[F]raud in its general sense is deemed to comprise anything
calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment involving
a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed,
resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious
advantage is taken of another. It is a generic term embracing all multifarious
means which human ingenuity can device, and which are resorted to by one
individual to secure an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression
of truth and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any unfair
way by which another is cheated. And deceit is the false representation of a
matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations,
or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is
intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.
X x x.”
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RICA
G. CUYUGAN, G.R. Nos. 146641-43, November 18,
2002
“x x x.
The transaction between appellant and the Abagat
spouses, in our view, was one for a loan
of money to be used by appellant in her business and she issued checks
to guarantee the payment of the loan. As such, she has the obligation to
make good the payment of the money borrowed by her. But such obligation is civil in character and in the absence of
fraud, no criminal liability under the Revised Penal Code arises from the mere
issuance of postdated checks as a guarantee of repayment. We find
appellants allegation, that the Abagat spouses entered into a joint
venture agreement with her for the supply of materials with the AFP, is
self-serving. But we
also note that the trial court convicted appellant on a general allegation that
all the elements of estafa under Article 315, 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code
had been proved by the prosecution without
making any reference to or giving any proof of the actual fraud that appellant
allegedly committed to make her liable for estafa. It is
elementary that where an allegation in the information is an essential element
of the crime, the same must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction. In this case, the
prosecution did not establish specifically and conclusively the fraud alleged
as an element of the offenses charged.
X x x.”
JOY LEE RECUERDO vs. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
G.R. No. 168217, June 27, 2006
“x x x.
There can be no estafa if the accused acted in good faith because
good faith negates malice and deceit (People vs. Ojeda, G.R. Nos. 104238-58, June
3, 2004, 430 SCRA 436). Good faith is an
intangible and abstract quality with no technical meaning or statutory
definition, and it encompasses, among other things, an honest belief, the absence of malice and the absence of design to
defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage. X x x. It implies honesty of intention and
freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon
inquiry. The essence of good faith lies in an honest belief in the
validity of ones right, ignorance of a superior claim, and absence of intention
to overreach another (Philippine National Bank v. De Jesus, G.R.
No. 149295, September 23, 2003, 411 SCRA 557, 561). In People v.
Gulion,
402 Phil. 653 (2001), the Court held that:
Good faith is a defense to a charge of Estafa by postdating a
check. This may be manifested by the accuseds offering to make
arrangements with his creditor as to the manner of payment or, as in the
present case, averring that his placing his signature on the questioned checks
was purely a result of his gullibility and inadvertence, with the unfortunate
result that he himself became a victim of the trickery and manipulations of
accused-at-large.
X x x.”
