SECOND
DIVISION
MARIA
SOCORRO CACA,
Petitioner,
G. R. No. 116962
July 7, 1997
-versus-
COURT
OF APPEALSand PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
D
E C I S I O N
ROMERO, J.:
Petitioner
Maria Socorro Caca was charged with
estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 [B. P. 22] for issuing a
post-dated check in favor of Nancy Lim Rile which was dishonored by the
drawer bank for having been drawn against a closed account. The
evidence
for the prosecution established the following antecedent facts:
On December 16,
1987, petitioner allegedly borrowed
P50,000.00 from Nancy Lim Rile who received a post-dated check as
security
therefor. Before its due date, petitioner redeemed the check by paying
her obligation in cash. On March 22, 1988, she again borrowed from Rile
the amount of P125.000.00, secured by another post-dated check which,
as
in the first instance, was redeemed before its due date. A third loan
of
P250,000.00 was procured by petitioner on August 17, 1988, secured by
Check
No. 201596 of the Security Bank and Trust Co. dated February 28, 1989.cralaw:red
When petitioner
failed to redeem this third check
as was her wont, Rile deposited it with China Bank Magallanes Branch,
Cebu
City, but it was dishonored for being drawn against a closed account.
Despite several demand letters, petitioner
failed
to settle her account.cralaw:red
Petitioner, on
the other hand, denied that she
issued the check for value or for the account of Rile with whom she
also
denied having any transaction. She testified that she never received
the
amount of P250,000.00 and could not have borrowed the amount from Rile
because she was not financially capable of repaying said amount. Said
check
which was allegedly pre-signed and kept in her drawer as teller of the
Traders Royal Bank [TRB], was purportedly lost and somehow found its
way
in the hands of Rile who typed "all the entries found on said check,
such
as the name of the payee, date and amount."[1]
Defense witness
Placido Villarosa, a security
guard at TRB, testified that it was his duty "to record the entry and
exit
of the employees of the bank."[2]
The logbook indicated that on August 17, 1988, petitioner never left
the
building, implicitly negating the alleged transaction entered into
between
the parties on such date.cralaw:red
Exaltation Saynes
averred that her sister, herein
petitioner, could not have borrowed the reported sums of money for she
lacked the financial ability to pay them back.cralaw:red
Sarah Alfonso,
petitioner's officemate at TRB,
narrated that she also received a demand letter from Rile in connection
with a dishonored check. She went to Rile's residence with petitioner
and
learned that they were swindled by a certain Annie Pascua who delivered
their blank checks to Rile and thereupon directed the amounts to be
entered
on each check. She corroborated the claim that petitioner never dealt
with
Rile.cralaw:red
On March 12,
1992, after trial on the merits,
Judge Celso M. Gimenez of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch
5, rendered judgment finding petitioner guilty only of violation of B.
P. 22, sentencing her to a six-month imprisonment and ordering her to
pay
Rile the amount of P250,000.00 with legal interest from the filing of
the
case until it is fully paid.cralaw:red
This was affirmed
in toto by the Court
of Appeals in its assailed decision of June 30, 1994. In this action,
petitioner
mainly questions the appreciation of evidence by the trial and
appellate
courts.
We find no compelling reason to disturb the trial
court's conclusions as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. As
consistently
held by this Court, the findings of the trial court on the credibility
of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not
be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that said court
overlooked,
misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and
substance.[3]
The defense
denied that petitioner issued the
check in question; much less did she incur any obligation in favor of
Rile.
As aptly observed by the Court of Appeals, however, the record is
bereft
of any motive on the part of Rile for her to falsely impute to
petitioner
the supposed imaginary loan.
Neither can we accept the theory that
petitioner's
pre-signed check was stolen. She even alleged that a certain Luana
Sumalinog,
a co-employee at TRB, was the one who took the check. It does not
appear,
however, that she took any action or filed any case against Sumalinog
for
the petty theft. On the other hand, petitioner admitted that in the
past,
she had been issuing pre-signed checks to Sumalinog in payment of her
obligations.[4]
As a bank teller, petitioner must have been fully aware of the
consequences
of issuing a pre-signed blank check.cralaw:red
The affirmative
declaration of Rile prevails over
the bare denial of petitioner. The latter's allegation that she was
never
acquainted with the former until sometime in April 1989 and, hence,
could
not have entered into any business dealing with her is untenable. This
Court has held that denial is a self-serving negative defense that
cannot
be given greater weight than the declaration of a credible witness who
testified on affirmative matters.[5]
Finally, as
regards the implausibility of petitioner's
borrowing substantial amounts of money due to her incapacity to repay
the
loan, We agree with the trial court's conclusion that "people are
forced
to borrow money because of financial problems, and it is not a valid
defense
to claim that she could not have borrowed from Mrs. Rile because she is
not capable of paying the amount."[6]
WHEREFORE, in
view of the foregoing, the judgment
appealed from is AFFIRMED. No costs.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Regalado and
Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
Puno and Torres, Jr., JJ., are on
leave.cralaw:red
___________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Rollo, p. 27.
[2]
Ibid., p. 27.
[3]
People v. Paragua, 257 SCRA 118 [1996].
[4]
Rollo, p. 20.
[5]
People v. Carizo, 233 SCRA 687 [1994].
[6]
Rollo, p. 30. |