Case Digest (G.R. No. 141669)
Facts:
Jaime Dico, G.R. No. 141669, February 28, 2005, the Supreme Court En Banc, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Jaime Dico was charged by information on 28 March 1994 with three counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. Blg. 22) (bad checks) before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 7, Cebu City (Criminal Cases Nos. 38254‑R to 38256‑R). The three informations alleged he issued FEBTC checks that were dishonored: Check No. 369380 (Jan. 15, 1993) for P296,736.27; Check No. 369403 (May 12, 1993) for P100,000.00; and Check No. 369404 (June 12, 1993) for P200,000.00, all payable to Equitable Card Network, Inc. The informations charged knowledge of insufficiency of funds and subsequent dishonor.
At arraignment on 11 January 1995 petitioner pleaded not guilty. Pre‑trial was waived and the three cases were consolidated for trial. The prosecution’s sole witness was Lily Canlas, Collection Manager of Equitable Card Network; the defense called Debbie Dy (branch manager) as a hostile witness and petitioner himself. The prosecution established issuance and dishonor of the checks and introduced collection letters and account summaries. Petitioner admitted issuing the checks but testified that he had disputed billing inconsistencies, had proposed post‑dated checks as part of a repayment plan, had made a P100,000 cash payment, and had filed a petition for insolvency listing the card network among creditors; he also testified that some checks were not returned to him.
On 19 June 1996 the MTCC convicted petitioner for all three counts and imposed six months’ imprisonment for each and ordered indemnities corresponding to the face amounts. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied (26 August 1996). He appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Cebu City; on 20 February 1997 the RTC (Ferdinand J. Marcos, Presiding Judge) affirmed the MTCC decision in toto. Reconsideration was denied (23 June 1997). Petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals.
In a Decision dated 30 September 1999 the Court of Appeals (Quirino D. Abad Santos, Jr., with Callejo and Umali, JJ., concurring) modified the lower courts’ judgments: it acquitted petitioner in Criminal Case No. 38256‑R (the Jan. 15, 1993 check) because the dishonor occurred beyond 90 days and the prima facie presumption of knowledge did not arise, but it affirmed conviction in Criminal Cases Nos. 38254‑R and 38255‑R (May 12 and June 12 checks). The CA nonetheless ordered civil indemnity for the acquitted check. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (11 January 2000).
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in the Supreme Court on 14 February 2000, seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision and its denial of reconsideration; he argued inter alia that ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove the statutory elements of the offense under Section 1, B.P. Blg. 22 in each charged case?
- Does a variance between the check described in the information and the check offered in evidence vitiate a conviction under B.P. Blg. 22?
- Was the notice of dishonor required by Section 2, B.P. Blg. 22 properly sent and received as to FEBTC Check No. 369404 (Crim. Case No. 38255‑R), thereby triggering the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)