EXTINGUISHMENT

ANAMER SALAZAR vs. PEOPLE AND J.Y. BROTHERS MARKETING CORP.

G.R. No. 151931
September 23, 2003

Ponente: CALLEJO, SR.,J:

FACTS:
Petitioner Anamer Salazar purchased 300 cavans of rice from J.Y. Brothers
Marketing. As payment for these, she gave a check drawn against the Prudential
Bank by one Nena Timario. J.Y. accepted the check upon the petitioner’s
assurance that it was good check. Upon presentment, the check was dishonored
because it was drawn under a closed account. Upon being informed of such
dishonor, petitioner replaced the check drawn against the Solid Bank, which,
however, was returned with the word “DAUD” (Drawn against uncollected
deposit).

After the prosecution rested its case, the petitioner filed a Demurrer to Evidence
with Leave of Court. The trial court rendered judgment acquitting the petitioner of
the crime charged but ordering her to pay, as payment of her purchase. The
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on the civil aspect of the decision with
a plea that she be allowed to present evidence pursuant to Rule 33 of the Rules
of Court, but the court denied the motion.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Solid Bank Check replacement would have resulted to the
novation of the obligation arising from the issuance of the check?

HELD:
No Novation. Extinctive Novation is never presumed, it must be explicitly stated
and declared in unequivocal terms. The obligation to pay a sum of money is not
novated by an instrument that expressly recognizes that the old changes only the
terms of payment, adds other obligations not incompatible with the old ones or
the new contract merely supplements the old one.

Salazar contends that the issuance of the Solid Bank check and acceptance
thereof by JY Bros. , in replacement of the dishonored Prudential Bank
check amounted to novation which discharged the check. JYs acceptance of the
Solid Bank check, notwithstanding its eventual dishonor by the drawee bank, had
the effect of erasing whatever criminal responsibility, under Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code, the drawer or indorser of the Prudential Bank check would
have incurred. Check is a contract susceptible the effects of novation. Sec. 119.
Instrument; how discharged. – A negotiable instrument is discharged: (a) By
payment in due course by or on behalf of the principal debtor; (b) By payment in
due course by the party accommodated, where the instrument is made or
accepted for his accommodation; (c) By the intentional cancellation thereof by
the holder; (d) By any other act which will discharge a simple contract for
the payment of money; (e) When the principal debtor becomes the holder of the
instrument at or after maturity in his own right.

Acceptance of Solid Bank Check, w/c replaced PB check which was dishonored
is NOT equal to novation. There was no express agreement to establish that
petitioner was already discharged from his liability to pay respondent the amount
of P214,000.00 as payment for the 300 bags of rice. In fact, when Salazar
delivered the SB check, he even indorsed it, which shows his recognition of his

1
existing obligation to pay the P214K. There is no incompatibility of obligation –
since the 2 checks were precisely for the purpose of paying the amount of
P214,000.00, obtained from purchase of 300 bags of rice – no substantial
change in the object or principal condition. Petitioner also contends that the
acceptance of the Solid Bank check – non negotiable, crossed check.