In a decision1 [Original Record (OR), 223-240; CA Rollo, 9-25. Per Judge Jaime T. Hamoy.] rendered in Criminal Case No. C-34417 for estafa under Article 315(2) (d) of the Revised Penal Code2 [As amended by R.A. No. 4885 and P.D. 818.] and Criminal Cases Nos. C-34418 to C-34421 for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22,3 [Entitled "An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and for Other Purposes."] the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan, Branch 130, found accused-appellant Naty Chua (hereafter NATY) guilty beyond reasonable doubt in all cases. ScÓ jj

The Information in Criminal Case No. C-34417 charged NATY with estafa allegedly committed as follows:

The accusatory portion of the information in Criminal Case No. C-34418 reads as follows:

The Informations in Criminal Case Nos. C-34419 to C-344216 [Id., 6, 8, 10.] are similarly worded as in Criminal Case No. C-34418 except as to the dates of issue, and the numbers and amounts of the checks. Involved therein are Check No. 12276356 dated 23 May 1989 in the amount of P100,000; Check No. 12276357 dated 6 June 1989 in the amount of P50,000; and Check No. 12276358 dated 23 June 1989 in the amount of P50,000. The ground for the dishonor of the checks was "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds."

The cases were consolidated and jointly tried. Upon arraignment, NATY pleaded not guilty in each case.7 [OR, 36.] Courtä

The evidence for the prosecution is summarized in the challenged decision of the trial court as follows:

On the other hand, NATY interposed the defense of denial. She denied knowing Robert Loo Tian (hereafter ROBERT) and issuing checks to him. She testified that she received a subpoena from the City Prosecutor’s Office of Kalookan City sometime in July 1989. Since she did not know the complainant, she "deemed it proper not to attend the hearing." She sent her mother to the prosecutor’s office to find out who filed the case against her. Her mother reported that the complainant was one Robert Loo Tian and that the latter was interested in just settling the case. Her mother and ROBERT agreed at the prosecutor’s office to meet at Aldy’s Restaurant at 2:00 p.m., and her mother advised her to meet with ROBERT.

Accompanied by her mother, her uncle Benjamin Manalo, and her friend Precy, NATY went to Aldy’s Restaurant at the appointed hour. Mrs. Loo Tian was there waiting outside the restaurant. Since the restaurant was still closed, her uncle suggested that they go instead to Silver City Restaurant across the street and just wait for ROBERT there. Jjjä uris

When they were already inside the restaurant Mrs. Loo Tian made a phone call to ROBERT. NATY’s companions all sat on one table. NATY sat on the table next to them, as their table was already fully occupied; besides, she wanted to show then that she and ROBERT did not know each other. After waiting for one-and–a half hours, ROBERT arrived and appraoched the table where his wife and NATY’s companions were sitting. He faced Precy and asked her, "Naty, why [didn’t] you want to appear at the fiscal’s office?" NATY’S mother answered, "That is not Naty" and pointed at her and said, "That is Naty." When Ben Manalo asked her whether she knew ROBERT, she shook her head to indicate that she did not know him. ROBERT just stared at her and sat down at the table of her companions. ROBERT then said that they should just settle the case and that she should help him by letting Susan appear before the prosecutor’s office in order for Susan to pay the P20,000 check issued to Teresita Lim. ROBERT also told her that she could pay to him in installment the amounts of the checks. She refused and told ROBERT that she did not know him, nor did she have an obligation to him. As for Susan’s wherabouts, she had no knowledge thereof. lex

NATY further declared that the four checks issued by her were for Teresita Lim as collateral for her loan and that she already paid these checks in cash and in kind out of the goods taken by Teresita from her store. The goods taken by Teresita worth P65,000 and charged against her loan were covered by delivery receipts. She further claimed that the cash payments she made were listed on a piece of paper and signed by Teresita after each payment. However, she was unable to take back the checks from Teresita. When she requested an accounting Teresita wanted her to produce the list of payments made, but she did not give her list to Teresita. Unfortunately, the list is now missing; although at the time Teresita demanded its production, it was still existing. Jksm

Finally, NATY asserted that she merely stood as guarantor to the checks she indorsed, which represented the loans obtained for teresita Lim by Susana de Guzman in the amount of P20,000 and by Gracita del Rosario in the amount of P7,500.9 [TSN, 30 January 1991, 3-20.]

Benjamin Manalo corroborated NATY’s testimony as to what transpired during the meeting at Silver City Restaurant. He testified that NATY did not sit at their table but sat on the third table away form them and they all pretended that they did not know each other. ROBERT came in after a while and proceeded to their table. ROBERT mistook Precy for Naty, and he was corrected by NATY’s mother.10 [TSN, 24 June 1992, 8-13]

The trial court did not believe NATY. It found unworthy her claim that her four personal postdated checks and the two indorsed checks were issued and indorsed not to ROBERT but to Teresita, since ROBERT was in possession thereof. It did not give credence to her claim that she had already paid the amounts evidenced by the checks. It held: Chief

The trial court likewise found NATY guilty of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for having issued four worhtless checks. The law punishes the mere issuance, regardless of the intent of the parties, of any kind of check which is subsequently dishonored.

Accordingly, the trial court rendered judgment against NATY. In the estafa case it sentenced her to suffer the penalty of thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the offended party ROBERT in the amount of P232,650, plus 12% interest per annum from date of demand; and in each of the four cases for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, it imposed upon her the penalty of imprisonment of one (1) year.

NATY interposed an appeal from the decision to the Court of Appeals, which was, however, referred to us in view of the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed in the estafa case. Esmsc

We accepted the appeal.

In her Appellant’s Brief, NATY contends that the trial court erred in

NATY argues that one of the elements of estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised Penal Code is a finding beyond reasonable doubt that the issuance of the check was the "efficient cause" and the "means used to obtain a valuable consideration." This element was absent in her case because the issuance of the checks was not the inducement for the loan to her. The inducements were the intercession made by Teresita Lim, ROBERT’s sister-in-law, and the interest to be earned on the money lent. NATY further stresses that the checks for which she was convicted were not the same checks originally issued, but replacement checks issued sometime in March 1989 when her loan obligation was already four months old. Hence, there was already a pre-existing obligation for which the replacement checks were made to answer. She did not, therefore, commit the crime of estafa.

In addition, NATY faults trial court for refusing to consider her claim that she had already paid her loan as shown by the fifteen receipts totalling P65,000. Edpä sc

In the Appellee’s Brief, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) submits that NATY cannot be convicted of estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised Penal Code, since the subject checks were replacement checks issued and delivered in payment of a pre-existing obligation. Hence, the checks could no longer be considered as the means employed by NATY to obtain a loan from complainant. The element of deceit was thus lacking.

However, the OSG agrees with the trial court that NATY violated B.P. Blg. 22 in the issuance of the four replacement checks. She issued the checks as payment for the money she borrowed from complainant, but all the checks bounced. Despite demand, she failed to make good the checks. Sceä dp

The OSG then recommends that NATY’s conviction for estafa be reversed and she be acquitted thereof, while her conviction for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 be affirmed with the modification that she be required to indemnify the offended party of the amount equivalent to the value of the checks she personally issued.

After deliberating on the assigned errors and the briefs submitted by the parties, we find NATY’s appeal partially impressed with merit.

NATY should be acquitted in the case for estafa. She is charged under Article 315(2) (d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 4885, which penalizes any person who shall defraud another "by postdating a check or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in he bank or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check." The elements therefor are (1) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee thereof.12 [People v. Tugbang, 196 SCRA 341, 350-351 1991].] Damage and deceit are essential elements of the offense and must be established with satisfactory proof to warant conviction,13 [People v. Grospe, 157 SCRA 154, 161 1988].] while the false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to, or simultaneously with, the issuance of the bad check.14 [People v. Sabio, Sr., 86 SCRA 568, 580 [1978].] Es-mso

What is obvious to us is that NATY borrowed money from ROBERT through the intercession of the latter’s sister-in-law, Teresita Lim. In payment therefor she issued postdated checks. When such checks became due she notified ROBERT not to deposit them, since these were not yet funded. ROBERT agreed that NATY replace the checks with another set of six postdated checks, four of which were her personal checks and the other two were issued by another which NATY indorsed to ROBERT. Ineluctably, the replacement checks were issued in payment of an obligation long contracted and incurred. It cannot therefore be said that NATY committed fraudulent acts in the issuance and the indorsement of the replacement checks. In short, the replacement checks were by no means the device used by NATY to induce ROBERT to lend her money without which the transaction would not have been consummated. Ms-esm

Even assuming arguendo that the checks subject of this case were the original postdated checks issued by NATY at the time of the transaction, still no estafa was committed. The trial court had overlooked portions of the testimony of ROBERT obviously indicating that what transpired between ROBERT and NATY was a simple loan transaction, the principal of which was payable at a future date with interest.15 [TSN, 2 May 1990, 6.] This was amply corroborated by prosecution witness Teresita Lim, who declared that it was she who introduced NATY to ROBERT and asked the latter whether he could lend money to NATY.16 [TSN, 28 November 1990, 5, 22, 25.] ROBERT himself admitted that what motivated him to lend the amount to NATY was not her issuing the original postdated checks17 [TSN, 2 May 1990, 40.] but the expectation that he would receive an interest equivalent to 1% a month of the total amount borrowed from him. E-xsm

However, NATY is liable under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for issuing four replacemnt checks. The law makes the mere act of issuing a worthless check punishable as a special offense.18 [People v. Tugbang, supra note 15.] The gravamen of the offense under this law is the act of issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment.19 [Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 324, 338 [1986].] The law has made the mere act of issuing a bum check a malum prohibitum, an act proscribed by legislature for being deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare.20 [People v. Laggui, 171 SCRA 305, 311 [1989].] It is undisputed that the four replacement checks in question were issued by NATY and that these were all dishonored due to insufficiency of funds.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered REVERSING the challenged decision of the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City, Branch 130, insofar as Criminal Case No. C-34417 is concerned and ACQUITTING accused-appellant NATY CHUA of the crime of estafa charged therein; and AFFIRMING it insofar as the conviction of NATY CHUA in Criminal Cases Nos. C-34418 to C-34421 for violations of Batas Pambans Blg. 22 and the imposition of the penalty of imprisonment of one (1) year in each case are concerned, with the modification that she is further ordered to pay the offended party Robert Loo Tian the face value of the checks involved therein, to wit: P5,150; P100,000; P50,000; and P50,000, or a total of P205,150, with legal interest from the filing of the informations until the finality of this decision andat the rate of 12% per annum thereafter until the amounts are fully paid. Ky-le

No prouncement as to costs.

Puno, Kapunan, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur. S-l-x