Case Digest (G.R. No. 143375)
Facts:
Bautista v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143375, July 06, 2001, Supreme Court Second Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Ruth D. Bautista issued Metrobank Check No. 005014037 dated May 8, 1998 for P1,500,000.00 in favor of private respondent Susan Alona; Alona alleges petitioner assured her the check would be sufficiently funded on maturity. On October 20, 1998 Alona presented the check for payment and the drawee bank dishonored it for insufficiency of funds (DAIF).On March 16, 1999 Alona filed a complaint-affidavit with the City Prosecutor of Cavite City; she alleged repeated demands on petitioner to arrange payment within five working days after receipt of notice of dishonor, but petitioner failed to do so. Petitioner submitted a counter-affidavit asserting that presentment beyond ninety (90) days from the check’s date (the check was presented 166 days after its date) precludes criminal liability under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), and she also claimed she assigned a condominium unit as full payment.
The investigating prosecutor recommended filing an information on April 22, 1999, which the City Prosecutor approved. Petitioner sought review from the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP), Region IV; the ORSP denied relief in a resolution dated June 25, 1999 and again denied reconsideration on August 31, 1999 (citing Department Order No. 223). Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals on October 1, 1999; the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on October 26, 1999 for improper procedural remedy under Rule 43 and for failing to allege the essentials of certiorari. Petitioner brought the matter to the Supreme Co...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the action of the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor in upholding the City Prosecutor’s resolution recommending the filing of an information reviewable by the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure?
- Can a drawer be criminally prosecuted under BP 22, Sec. 1 for issuance of a dishonored check presented for payment more than ninety (90) days after its date, or does the ninety-day presentment period const...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)