Case Digest (G.R. No. 7540) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Pacifico B. Arceo, Jr. v. People of the Philippines, the petitioner, Pacifico B. Arceo, Jr., obtained two loans from Josefino Cenizal totaling ₱150,000.00 in early 1991. To cover the loan amount, Arceo issued a postdated check (Check No. 163255) dated August 4, 1991, drawn on the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI). Cenizal did not immediately deposit the check as Arceo promised verbally on seven occasions to replace the check with cash. Eventually, when Cenizal deposited the check in December 1991, it was dishonored due to insufficient funds, as confirmed by a letter from BPI. Cenizal visited Arceo’s residence to complain but found that he had already left. Cenizal then resorted to legal assistance and had a lawyer send a written demand giving Arceo three days to settle the payment, which he failed to do. Cenizal subsequently filed a complaint for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), the “Bouncing Checks Law,” supported by an affidavit and documents befo
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 7540) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Transaction Between Parties
- On March 14, 1991, petitioner Pacifico B. Arceo, Jr. obtained a loan of ₱100,000.00 from private complainant Josefino Cenizal.
- Several weeks later, petitioner secured an additional loan of ₱50,000.00 from Cenizal, totaling ₱150,000.00.
- Petitioner issued Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) Check No. 163255, postdated August 4, 1991, in favor of Cenizal for ₱150,000.00 at Cenizal’s residence.
- Presentation and Dishonor of Check
- On the due date (August 4, 1991), Cenizal did not immediately deposit the check because petitioner assured, on seven occasions, that he would replace the check with cash.
- When Cenizal’s patience expired, he presented the check for encashment.
- The BPI head office informed Cenizal by letter dated December 5, 1991, that the check was dishonored due to insufficient funds.
- Post-Dishonor Events
- Cenizal attempted to inform petitioner of the dishonor but found that petitioner had left his residence.
- Cenizal referred the matter to a lawyer who issued a demand letter giving petitioner three days to pay the check amount.
- Petitioner failed to pay within the given period.
- Legal Proceedings
- Cenizal executed an affidavit on January 20, 1992, and filed a complaint for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) 22 against petitioner.
- Case for violation of BP 22 was filed on March 27, 1992.
- The original check and return slip were lost in a fire near Cenizal’s residence on September 16, 1992.
- Cenizal executed an Affidavit of Loss for the lost documents.
- Trial and Appeals
- The trial court found petitioner guilty of violating BP 22.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the trial court’s judgment on April 28, 1999, and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on March 27, 2000.
- Petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Whether the failure of the prosecution to present the dishonored check as evidence invalidates petitioner’s conviction under BP 22.
- Whether the overdue presentment of the check (beyond the 90-day period) absolves petitioner from liability.
- Whether the notice of dishonor and the period given to petitioner to pay complied with the requirements of BP 22.
- Whether petitioner’s claim of prior payment of the loan obligation negates his liability.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)