Case Digest (G.R. No. 116566)
Facts:
Domingo Dico, Jr. v. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 116566 and 120149, April 14, 1999, Supreme Court Third Division, Purisima, J., writing for the Court.The complainant, Margie Lim Chao, supplied baking ingredients to petitioner Domingo Dico, Jr., owner of Paulo Bake Shop, and received a number of postdated checks from him as payment. She later filed six criminal complaints for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), each complaint containing five counts, alleging issuance of more than twenty-four checks that were dishonored on presentment. Two of those complaints (five checks each) gave rise to the two petitions now consolidated before the Court. The five checks at issue in one complaint bore numbers, dates and amounts (PCIB checks nos. 05509, 05513, 05524, 05525 and 07285) originally dated February–March 1987 but later redated to August 3, 1987; they were ultimately deposited about a month after maturity and were returned for the reason "Account Closed."
Petitioner’s defense was that after issuance of the checks he and complainant entered into a partnership to supply automotive parts to the National Irrigation Administration in Zamboanga del Sur, that complainant extended credit and that his share of partnership profits would offset his indebtedness for the baking supplies. He asserted the checks were retained as warranty/security, re-dated at complainant’s request and not intended to be presented for encashment, and therefore should not attract criminal liability.
Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cebu, convicted petitioner on five counts of BP 22 and sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment on each count (aggregate twenty months); the Court of Appeals affirmed that conviction on December 29, 1993 (CA-G.R. No. 11759). Branch 16, RTC, Cebu likewise convicted petitioner on another set of five counts, imposing sixty days’ imprisonment on each count; t...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether this Court may disturb the Court of Appeals’ findings of fact sustaining petitioner’s convictions.
- Whether petitioner is criminally liable under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for issuing the dishonored checks.
- Whether petitioner’s defenses — that the checks were mere warranty/memo checks and that his partnership transactions effected a set-off — exempt...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)