G.R. No. 195547 - Ola vs. People

In April 1998, petitioner Ruth D. Bautista issued Metrobank Check No. 005014037 dated May 8, 1998 in the amount of ₱1,500,000.00 to private respondent Susan AloAa, assuring her of sufficient funds on maturity.
Private respondent presented the check for payment on October 20, 1998 (166 days after its date). Drawee bank dishonored the check due to “Drawn Against Insufficient Funds” (DAIF).

On March 16, 1999, private respondent filed a complaint-affidavit for violation of BP 22 with the City Prosecutor of Cavite City, alleging demand and failure to pay or arrange payment within five working days after notice of dishonor. Petitioner countered that presentment beyond 90 days rendered BP 22 inapplicable and claimed assignment of a condominium as payment.
On April 22, 1999, the investigating prosecutor recommended filing of information. Petitioner filed a petition for review with the ORSP Region IV on May 13, 1999; it was denied on June 25, 1999 (and reconsideration denied on August 31, 1999).
On October 1, 1999, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a “petition for review” of the ORSP resolutions. The CA dismissed it on October 26, 1999 for lack of appellate jurisdiction under Rule 43, RRCivP.

Whether the presentation of a check beyond 90 days from its date is an essential element barring prosecution under BP 22.
Whether a prosecutor’s resolution approving the filing of information after preliminary investigation is appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, RRCivP.
Whether the ORSP’s denial of petitioner’s petition for review can be assailed by certiorari or other special civil action.