Title
Bautista vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 143375
Decision Date
Jul 6, 2001
Petitioner issued a check that was dishonored for insufficient funds; Supreme Court ruled 90-day presentment period under BP 22 is not essential, affirming prosecution's discretion.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 143375)

Facts:

  1. Issuance of the Check: In April 1998, petitioner Ruth D. Bautista issued Metrobank Check No. 005014037 dated 8 May 1998 for P1,500,000.00 to private respondent Susan AloAa. The check was drawn on Metrobank Cavite City Branch. Petitioner assured private respondent that the check would be sufficiently funded on its maturity date.

  2. Dishonor of the Check: On 20 October 1998, private respondent presented the check for payment. The drawee bank dishonored the check due to insufficient funds (DAIF). Private respondent alleged that she made repeated demands on petitioner to arrange payment within five (5) working days after receiving notice of dishonor, but petitioner failed to comply.

  3. Filing of Complaint: On 16 March 1999, private respondent filed a complaint-affidavit with the City Prosecutor of Cavite City, alleging the issuance and dishonor of the check, as well as petitioner's failure to make arrangements for payment.

  4. Petitioner’s Defense: Petitioner argued that presentment of the check within ninety (90) days from its due date was an essential element of the offense under BP 22. Since the check was presented 166 days after its due date, she claimed it was no longer punishable under BP 22. She also asserted that she had assigned her condominium unit to private respondent as full payment for the bounced checks, extinguishing her criminal liability.

  5. Prosecutor’s Resolution: On 22 April 1999, the investigating prosecutor recommended the filing of an Information against petitioner for violation of BP 22, which was approved by the City Prosecutor.

  6. Petition for Review: On 13 May 1999, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP) for Region IV, which was denied on 25 June 1999. A motion for reconsideration was also denied on 31 August 1999.

  7. Appeal to the Court of Appeals: On 1 October 1999, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition on 26 October 1999, ruling that the proper remedy was a petition for certiorari and that the case should have been filed with the Regional Trial Court.

Issue:

  1. Whether the drawer of a check dishonored due to insufficient funds can be prosecuted under BP 22 if the check is presented for payment after ninety (90) days from its due date.
  2. Whether the Office of the Prosecutor is a quasi-judicial body whose decisions are appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
  3. Whether the ninety (90)-day presentment period is an essential element of the offense under BP 22.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolution of the Court of Appeals, holding that:

  1. The ninety (90)-day presentment period is not an essential element of the offense under BP 22. It is merely a prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds, which can be proven through other evidence.
  2. The Office of the Prosecutor is not a quasi-judicial body, and its decisions are not appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. The proper remedy is to present defenses during the trial.
  3. The prosecution may still prove knowledge of insufficient funds through other evidence, even if the check is presented after ninety (90) days.

Ratio:

  1. Elements of BP 22: The offense under BP 22 has three elements: (a) the making, drawing, and issuance of a check; (b) knowledge of insufficient funds at the time of issuance; and (c) subsequent dishonor of the check for insufficiency of funds. The ninety (90)-day presentment period is not an element but a presumption of knowledge under Section 2 of BP 22.

  2. Prima Facie Presumption: The dishonor of a check presented within ninety (90) days creates a prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds. However, this presumption is not conclusive, and the prosecution may prove knowledge through other evidence if the check is presented after ninety (90) days.

  3. Prosecutor’s Discretion: The prosecutor has the discretion to determine probable cause, and courts will not interfere unless there is grave abuse of discretion. The prosecutor’s finding of probable cause in this case was upheld.

  4. Quasi-Judicial Function: The prosecutor’s role in preliminary investigation is not quasi-judicial. It is inquisitorial and does not involve adjudication or rule-making. Therefore, decisions of the prosecutor are not appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.

  5. Remedy: The proper remedy for petitioner is to present her defenses during the trial, as the prosecution must prove knowledge of insufficient funds without the benefit of the presumption if the check is presented after ninety (90) days.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court ruled that the ninety (90)-day presentment period is not an essential element of BP 22 but a presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds. The prosecution may still prove knowledge through other evidence, and the prosecutor’s discretion in filing the case was upheld. The petition was dismissed, and the resolution of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.