ANG TEK LIAN Petitioner V THE
ANG TEK LIAN, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-2516. September 25, 1950.]
ANG TEK LIAN, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.
Laurel, Sabido, Almario & Laurel, for Petitioner.
Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Solicitor Manuel Tomacruz, for Respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; ESTAFA" ; ISSUING CHECK WITH INSUFFICIENT BANK DEPOSIT TO COVER THE SAME. — One who issues a check payable to cash to accomplish deceit and knows that at the time had no sufficient deposit with the bank to cover the amount of the check and without informing the payee of such circumstances, is guilty of estafa as provided by article 315, paragraph (d), subsection 2 of the Revised Penal Code.
2. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS; CHECK DRAWN PAYABLE TO THE ORDER OF "CASH" ; INDORSEMENT. — A check payable to the order of "cash to the person presenting it for payment without the drawer’s indorsement.
D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, J.:
For having issued a rubber check, Ang Tek Lian was convicted of estafa in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict.
It appears that, knowing he had no funds therefor, Ang Tek Lian drew on Saturday, November 16, 1946, the check Exhibit A upon the China Banking Corporation for the sum of P4,000, payable to the order of "cash." He delivered it to Lee Hua Hong in exchange for money which the latter handed in the act. On November 18, 1946, the next business day, the check was presented by Lee Hua Hong to the drawee bank for payment, but it was dishonored for insufficiency of funds, the balance of the deposit of Ang Tek Lian on both dates being P335 only.
The Court of Appeals believed the version of Lee Huan Hong who testified that "on November 16, 1946, appellant went to his (complainant’s) office, at 1217 Herran, Paco, Manila, and asked him to exchange Exhibit A — which he (appellant) then brought with him — with cash alleging that he needed badly the sum of P4,000 represented
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-2516. September 25, 1950.]
ANG TEK LIAN, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.
Laurel, Sabido, Almario & Laurel, for Petitioner.
Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Solicitor Manuel Tomacruz, for Respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; ESTAFA" ; ISSUING CHECK WITH INSUFFICIENT BANK DEPOSIT TO COVER THE SAME. — One who issues a check payable to cash to accomplish deceit and knows that at the time had no sufficient deposit with the bank to cover the amount of the check and without informing the payee of such circumstances, is guilty of estafa as provided by article 315, paragraph (d), subsection 2 of the Revised Penal Code.
2. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS; CHECK DRAWN PAYABLE TO THE ORDER OF "CASH" ; INDORSEMENT. — A check payable to the order of "cash to the person presenting it for payment without the drawer’s indorsement.
D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, J.:
For having issued a rubber check, Ang Tek Lian was convicted of estafa in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict.
It appears that, knowing he had no funds therefor, Ang Tek Lian drew on Saturday, November 16, 1946, the check Exhibit A upon the China Banking Corporation for the sum of P4,000, payable to the order of "cash." He delivered it to Lee Hua Hong in exchange for money which the latter handed in the act. On November 18, 1946, the next business day, the check was presented by Lee Hua Hong to the drawee bank for payment, but it was dishonored for insufficiency of funds, the balance of the deposit of Ang Tek Lian on both dates being P335 only.
The Court of Appeals believed the version of Lee Huan Hong who testified that "on November 16, 1946, appellant went to his (complainant’s) office, at 1217 Herran, Paco, Manila, and asked him to exchange Exhibit A — which he (appellant) then brought with him — with cash alleging that he needed badly the sum of P4,000 represented