G.R. No. 155619 - Bayani vs. People

Leodegario Bayani (Petitioner) was charged in an Information with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 alleging that on or about August 20, 1992, in Candelaria, Quezon, he willfully, unlawfully and feloniously issued Check No. 054924 dated August 26, 1992 for TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) drawn against the PS Bank, Candelaria Branch, payable to "Cash" and gave the check to Dolores Evangelista, knowing he had insufficient funds; the check was dishonored for insufficiency and despite due notice he failed to deposit or pay.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Lucena City, Branch 55, after trial rendered a Decision dated November 20, 1995 convicting Leodegario Bayani of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and sentenced him to one (1) year imprisonment, a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, ordered payment to Dolores Evangelista of P10,000.00 (value of the check), attorney's fees of P5,000.00, and double costs.
The RTC received documentary exhibits including the check booklet (Exh. "C"), the dishonored check (Check No. 054924), bank notices (Exh. "A-5"), and bank records (Exhs. "B-3", "B-4").

The RTC found the PS Bank, Candelaria Branch issued a check booklet to the accused on December 12, 1991 (Exh. "C") which included Check No. 054924.
The RTC found Check No. 054924 was dated August 26, 1992, payable to "Cash" for P10,000.00, made to apply to the account of the accused whose name appeared on the check; the check was post-dated, presented and thereafter dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds.
The RTC found the accused's checking account was closed on September 1, 1992 (Exh. "B-3") with a remaining balance of P2,414.96 (Exh. "B-4").
The RTC found the check was presented to complainant Dolores Evangelista for encashment by Alicia Rubia, that the check was returned for insufficiency (Exh. "A-5"), and that confrontations occurred between Evangelista, the accused and Rubia before counsel and before the barangay captain but the accused denied dealings with Evangelista concerning payment.
The RTC found the accused did not categorically deny that the signature on the check resembled his signature; he testified the signature was similar but had differences and he did not assert forgery nor request forensic comparison.

Whether the CA erred in refusing to acquit the accused given the alleged reliance on hearsay evidence.
Whether the prosecution proved that the check was issued "to apply for account or for value" as required under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
Whether the conviction rested improperly on presumptions or on the weakness of the defense rather than on the strength of the prosecution's evidence.
Whether the accused's claim that the signature only resembled his own was sufficient to rebut prosecution's proof or required forensic examination.

Whether Evangelista's testimony recounting what Alicia Rubia told her was hearsay under Rule 130, Sec. 36, and whether timely objection was made under Rule 132, Secs. 34-36....(Subscriber-Only)