Negotiable Instruments; Delivery must be made for purposes of giving effect thereto.

-"[T]he essential elements of the crime of theft are the following: (1) that there be a taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things."

Considering that the second element is that the thing taken belongs to another, it is relevant to determine whether ownership of the subject check was transferred to petitioner. On this point the Negotiable Instruments Law provides:

Sec. 12. Antedated and postdated – The instrument is not invalid for the reason only that it is antedated or postdated, provided this is not done for an illegal or fraudulent purpose. The person to whom an instrument so dated is delivered acquires the title thereto as of the date of delivery. (Underscoring supplied.)

Note however that delivery as the term is used in the aforementioned provision means that the party delivering did so for the purpose of giving effect thereto. Otherwise, it cannot be said that there has been delivery of the negotiable instrument. Once there is delivery, the person to whom the instrument is delivered gets the title to the instrument completely and irrevocably.

If the subject check was given by Puzon to SMC in payment of the obligation, the purpose of giving effect to the instrument is evident thus title to or ownership of the check was transferred upon delivery. However, if the check was not given as payment, there being no intent to give effect to the instrument, then ownership of the check was not transferred to SMC.

The evidence of SMC failed to establish that the check was given in payment of the obligation of Puzon. There was no provisional receipt or official receipt issued for the amount of the check. What was issued was a receipt for the document, a "POSTDATED CHECK SLIP."

Furthermore, the petitioner's demand letter sent to respondent states "As per company policies on receivables, all issuances are to be covered by post-dated checks. However, you have deviated from this policy by forcibly taking away the check you have issued to us to cover the December issuance." Notably, the term "payment" was not used instead the terms "covered" and "cover" were used.

Although the petitioner's witness, Gregorio L. Joven III, states in paragraph 6 of his affidavit that the check was given in payment of the obligation of Puzon, the same is contradicted by his statements in paragraph 4, where he states that "As a standard company operating procedure, all beer purchases by dealers on credit shall be coveredby postdated checks equivalent to the value of the beer products purchased"; in paragraph 9 where he states that "the transaction covered by the said check had not yet been paid for," and in paragraph 8 which clearly shows that partial payment is expected to be made by the return of beer empties, and not by the deposit or encashment of the check. Clearly the term "cover" was not meant to be used interchangeably with "payment."

When taken in conjunction with the counter-affidavit of Puzon – where he states that "As the [liquid beer] contents are paid for, SMC return[s] to me the corresponding PDCs or request[s] me to replace them with whatever was the unpaid balance." – it becomes clear that both parties did not intend for the check to pay for the beer products. The evidence proves that the check was accepted, not as payment, but in accordance with the long-standing policy of SMC to require its dealers to issue postdated checks to cover its receivables. The check was only meant to cover the transaction and in the meantime Puzon was to pay for the transaction by some other means other than the check. This being so, title to the check did not transfer to SMC; it remained with Puzon. The second element of the felony of theft was therefore not established. Petitioner was not able to show that Puzon took a check that belonged to another. Hence, the prosecutor and the DOJ were correct in finding no probable cause for theft.

Consequently, the CA did not err in finding no grave abuse of discretion committed by the DOJ in sustaining the dismissal of the case for theft for lack of probable cause. (San Miguel Corporation vs. Puzon, G.R. No. 167567, September 22, 2010, [Del Castillo, J.]