Facts:

This case involves Felicito Abarquez, the petitioner, who was found guilty of five counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law. The events transpired between June and July of 1986, when Abarquez issued five checks to Fertiphil Corporation, a company based in Makati, Metro Manila. The checks in question were issued on the following dates and amounts: Check No. 2956654 for P372,000.00 (June 5, 1986), Check No. 2956655 for P340,000.00 (June 5, 1986), Check No. 2954047 for P27,600.00 (June 13, 1986), Check No. 2956660 for P58,500.00 (June 27, 1986), and Check No. 2956662 for P52,200.00 (July 1, 1986), all drawn against his account at Republic Planters Bank, Dagupan Branch. All five checks were subsequently dishonored due to insufficient funds, prompting Fertiphil to demand payment from Abarquez. When he failed to satisfy the demand, Fertiphil lodged criminal complaints resulting in five separate informations filed in the Regional Trial Court (RT

...

Facts:

Background and Nature of the Case

• Felicito Abarquez, the petitioner, was charged with violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law) for issuing five checks in favor of Fertiphil Corporation.
• The checks were drawn against Republic Planters Bank, Dagupan City Branch, and were later dishonored.
• The five checks, with their corresponding check numbers, dates, and amounts, are as follows:
• Check No. 2956654 – June 5, 1986 – ₱372,000.00
• Check No. 2956655 – June 5, 1986 – ₱340,000.00
• Check No. 2954047 – June 13, 1986 – ₱27,600.00
• Check No. 2956660 – June 27, 1986 – ₱58,500.00
• Check No. 2956662 – July 1, 1986 – ₱52,200.00

Proceedings in the Lower Courts

• Criminal complaints were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City, Branch 41, resulting in five distinct informations corresponding to each check:
• Criminal Case No. D-8135 (Check No. 2956660)
• Criminal Case No. D-8136 (Check No. 2954047)
• Criminal Case No. D-8137 (Check No. 2956662)
• Criminal Case No. D-8176 (Check No. 2956655)
• Criminal Case No. D-8177 (Check No. 2956654)
• At trial, the RTC found petitioner Felicito Abarquez guilty beyond reasonable doubt in all counts, sentencing him to one (1) year imprisonment per count, ordering him to indemnify Fertiphil Corporation for the total amounts, and imposing costs.

Specific Factual Disputes and Payment Issues

• In Criminal Case No. D-8135, although the check (No. 2956660) was dishonored for insufficient funds, petitioner maintained that payment was made via telegraphic transfer on July 28, 1986—prior to any formal notice of dishonor or demand.
• In Criminal Case No. D-8136, petitioner argued that for Check No. 2954047, payment was effected on July 17, 1986 (by demand draft and telegraphic transfer), again before any formal written demand was issued.
• In Criminal Case No. D-8137, concerning Check No. 2956662, petitioner contended that the check was dishonored for being drawn against an uncollected deposit (DAUD) rather than for insufficient funds (DAIF), asserting a technical defense under BP Blg. 22.
• In Criminal Cases Nos. D-8176 and D-8177, petitioner argued that Checks Nos. 2956655 and 2956654 respectively were issued merely as an advance payment and not “for account or for value,” thus they should fall outside the ambit of the Bouncing Checks Law.

Appellate Proceedings and Decision Modifications

• On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the decision of the RTC was partially modified:
• The appellate court acquitted petitioner in Criminal Cases D-8135 and D-8136, holding that prompt payment (even if effected after dishonor) precluded criminal liability under BP Blg. 22.
• For Criminal Cases D-8137, D-8176, and D-8177, the CA upheld the conviction, though it deleted the imprisonment penalty and instead imposed fines calculated in accordance with Administrative Circular No. 12-2000.
• The CA’s fine for these cases was based on the principle of double the check amount; however, there was a noted conflict with the statutory ceiling under BP Blg. 22—which states that the fine shall not exceed ₱200,000.00.

Evidence and Legal Context

• Documentary evidence such as payment receipts (telegraphic transfer orders, demand drafts, official receipts) was presented to support the claim that payment was made within a time frame constituting a complete defense.
• Notices of dishonor were a central point of contention. The law presumes the drawer’s knowledge of insufficient funds unless he pays within five banking days after receiving notice of dishonor.
• The trial and appellate courts had to reconcile the factual matrix—especially in differentiating between checks issued on account or for value and the timing of payment—and its corresponding legal implications under BP Blg. 22.

Issue:

Whether petitioner should be held criminally liable for the bouncing check in Criminal Case No. D-8137, considering his contention that Check No. 2956662 was dishonored for being drawn against an uncollected deposit rather than for insufficient funds.

• Whether the nature of the deposit (uncollected vs. insufficient funds) affects the applicability of BP Blg. 22.

Whether the evidence of prompt payment in Criminal Cases D-8135 and D-8136—made prior to any formal notice of dishonor—negates the presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds and thus bars criminal liability.

• Whether payment made within or even before the mandated five banking days constitutes a complete defense.

• Whether checks issued for purposes other than “account or for value” (i.e., as an advance payment after reconciliation) can legally be categorized within the ambit of BP Blg. 22.

• Whether the imposition and calculation of fines, particularly when the amounts imposed exceed or double the check’s face value, are consistent with the explicit statutory limitation that fines shall not exceed ₱200,000.00 under Section 1 of BP Blg. 22.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)