Facts:

The case involves Ruth D. Bautista as the petitioner and the Court of Appeals, Office of the Regional State Prosecutor, Region IV, and Susan Aloaa as the respondents. The events leading to the case began in April 1998 when Bautista issued a check (Metrobank Check No. 005014037) dated May 8, 1998, for the amount of P1,500,000.00 to Aloaa, who was assured by Bautista that the check would be funded on its maturity date. However, when Aloaa presented the check for payment on October 20, 1998, it was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Following this, Aloaa filed a complaint-affidavit with the City Prosecutor of Cavite City on March 16, 1999, detailing her attempts to collect payment from Bautista after receiving notice of dishonor from the bank. Bautista countered that the check was presented for payment 166 days after its due date, arguing that this exceeded the 90-day limit for prosecution under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22), which governs bouncing checks. On April 22, 199...

Facts:

Issuance of the Check and Initial Representations

• In April 1998, petitioner Ruth D. Bautista issued a Metrobank check (No. 005014037) dated 8 May 1998, payable for P1,500,000.00 to private respondent Susan AloAa.
• Petitioner assured the respondent that the check would be sufficiently funded on its maturity date, thereby inducing reliance on the promise of payment.

Presentation and Subsequent Dishonor

• On 20 October 1998, the respondent presented the check for payment at Metrobank Cavite City Branch.
• The drawee bank dishonored the check due to insufficient funds (a dishonor for insufficiency of funds or credit).

Allegations and Demand for Payment

• After the dishonor, the respondent accused petitioner of failing to make arrangements or honor repeated demands for payment.
• It was alleged that the respondent repeatedly requested that petitioner settle the amount due within five (5) working days after receiving notice of the check’s dishonor.

Petitioner’s Counter-Affidavit and Defense

• Petitioner countered by asserting that the check was presented for payment 166 days after its due date, which she argued was a mandatory element for categorically invoking criminal liability under BP 22.
• She further claimed that she had already assigned her condominium unit at Antel Seaview Condominium, Roxas Boulevard, to the respondent as full payment for the bounced check, thereby extinguishing any criminal liability.

Initiation of Criminal Proceedings and Prosecutorial Acts

• On 16 March 1999, the respondent filed a complaint-affidavit with the City Prosecutor of Cavite City regarding the dishonored check and petitioner’s alleged misconduct.
• On 22 April 1999, the investigating prosecutor issued a resolution recommending the filing of an Information against petitioner for violation of BP 22, which was subsequently approved.
• Petitioner petitioned the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP) for Region IV on 13 May 1999 for a review of the said resolution. However, the ORSP denied the petition on 25 June 1999 and again denied her subsequent motion for reconsideration on 31 August 1999.

Filing of the Petition for Review and Subsequent Appeal

• Petitioner escalated the matter by filing a petition for review with the Court of Appeals on 1 October 1999, challenging both the ORSP’s resolution (dated 22 April 1999) and the denial of her motion for reconsideration (dated 31 August 1999).
• The Court of Appeals, in its Resolution dated 26 October 1999, dismissed the petition, effectively upholding the ORSP’s earlier action and refusing any review of the prosecutorial decision.

Contentions Raised by the Petitioner

• Petitioner charged that the failure to present the check within the 90-day period from its date amounted to a defense which, if proven, should preclude criminal prosecution under BP 22.
• She also argued that the prosecutorial action, conducted through preliminary investigation, exercised quasi-judicial functions, rendering its resolution subject to review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
• The petitioner maintained that the 90-day presentment requirement was an indispensable element for invoking the provision on insufficient funds as a ground for criminal liability.

Issue:

Procedural Issue on the Appeal Mechanism

• Whether the decision of the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP) in approving the filing of a criminal complaint—as reached through preliminary investigation—constitutes a final or quasi-judicial determination appealable under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Whether a prosecutor’s preliminary investigation, by virtue of its nature, confers a quasi-judicial status on its resolutions, thereby making them subject to review by the Court of Appeals.

Substantive Issue on the Elements of the Offense under BP 22

• Whether the fact that the check was presented for payment 166 days after its due date automatically precludes the application of criminal liability under BP 22.
• Whether the 90-day presentment period, as contained in Section 2 of BP 22, is an essential element of the offense or merely an evidentiary device to establish the element of knowledge of insufficient funds.
• How the distinction between the two distinct acts penalized by BP 22 (i.e., issuing a check knowing of insufficient funds and failing to maintain sufficient funds within 90 days) affects the prosecution of the case.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)