Ramos v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. L-64129-31. November 18, 1991]

30 Jul


Petitioner, as acting bank manager, allowed withdrawals on uncleared checks deposited into the accounts of her co-accused. Petitioner repeatedly granted accommodations in at least fourteen (14) instances and despite her knowledge that prior checks deposited by her co-accused turned out to be unfunded.



Whether or not petitioner is engaged in “check kiting” which amounts to estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence.



YES. The act of utilizing the float status of uncleared checks constitutes “check kiting”. The crime committed by the accused was estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence under Article 315 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code. In this case, petitioner acted maliciously or in bad faith by assuming to dispose the money of the bank as if it were her own, thereby committing conversion and a clear breach of trust. She performed an indispensable act necessary to enable her and her co-accused to accomplish the criminal purpose they had in mind.


Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: