Case Digest (G.R. No. 75243)
Facts:
Paz M. Dingle, the petitioner, is married to Nestor Dingle, and together they own a family business called “PMD Enterprises.” On a certain occasion, Nestor Dingle entered into a transaction with Ernesto Ang to sell 400 tons of washed silica sand. As part of this transaction, Ang made an advance payment to Nestor Dingle. However, Nestor failed to fulfill the agreement by not delivering the 400 tons of washed silica sand to Ang. Consequently, to settle this obligation, Nestor issued two postdated checks, signed by both him and Paz, which totaled to P51,885.93, representing the value of the undelivered sand. Unfortunately, these checks were dishonored due to being drawn against insufficient funds. After being notified of the dishonor, Nestor replaced the initial checks with a check from the Equitable Banking Corporation for the same amount, which was also signed by both spouses. This replacement check also bounced. Following the issuance of two demand letters, which were received bCase Digest (G.R. No. 75243)
Facts:
- Parties and Business Background
- Petitioners: Paz M. Dingle and her husband, Nestor Dingle, are co-owners of a family-run enterprise called "PMD Enterprises."
- Management: The business was managed by Nestor Dingle, who conducted transactions on behalf of the enterprise.
- Transaction with Ernesto Ang
- Nature of Transaction: Nestor Dingle entered into an agreement with Ernesto Ang for the sale of 400 tons of washed silica sand.
- Payment Received: Ernesto Ang advanced a payment to Nestor Dingle as part of the transaction.
- Failure to Deliver: Nestor Dingle did not deliver the agreed 400 tons of silica sand.
- Issuance and Dishonor of Checks
- Initial Postdated Checks:
- Two postdated checks were issued by Nestor Dingle, with both him and his wife serving as authorized signatories.
- The total amount of these checks was P51,885.93, which corresponded to the value of the undelivered silica sand.
- The checks were dishonored on the ground of "insufficient funds."
- Replacement Check:
- Following the dishonor of the initial checks, Nestor Dingle issued a replacement check from Equitable Banking Corporation, also in the amount of P51,885.93.
- This check, similarly, was signed by both spouses and met the same fate of dishonor.
- Demand for Payment:
- Two letters were sent to and received by Nestor Dingle demanding payment equivalent to the amount covered by the dishonored check.
- No payment was subsequently made to settle the amount.
- Criminal Charges and Court Proceedings
- Charge: The spouses were charged with violating BP Blg. 22 (Anti-Bouncing Check Law) due to the issuance of dishonored checks.
- Trial Court Decision:
- Both Paz and Nestor Dingle were found guilty by the trial court.
- The sentencing included six (6) months of arresto mayor imprisonment, a fine of P52,000.00, and an indemnification payment of P51,885.92 to the offended party.
- Intermediate Appellate Court (Now Court of Appeals) Decision:
- The appellate court modified the decision by reducing Paz Dingle’s penalty to imprisonment for only 30 days.
- Petitioner's Defense and Subsequent Proceedings
- Petition: Paz Dingle filed a petition, insisting on her innocence and arguing that she did not partake knowingly in the transaction or the issuance of the checks.
- Claim of Lack of Knowledge:
- She contended that she lacked knowledge regarding both the transaction with Ang and the fact that the checks were issued.
- Her signature on the checks was done in blank, without any knowledge of their later use to cover the undelivered goods or the resulting dishonor.
- Prosecution Evidence:
- The sole government witness, Ernesto Ang, testified that he dealt exclusively with Nestor Dingle.
- Ang did not mention Paz Dingle’s name in connection with the transaction or the checks.
- The testimony indicated that it was Nestor Dingle who received the letters of demand for payment.
- Pertinent Precedent Cited:
- The case of Florentino Lozano vs. Hon. Martinez was referenced, establishing that an essential element of the offense under BP Blg. 22 is the maker’s or drawer’s knowledge of fund insufficiency.
Issues:
- Criminal Liability of Paz Dingle
- Whether the petitioner, Paz Dingle, incurred criminal liability under BP Blg. 22 given that she did not have knowledge of the dishonor or the underlying transaction.
- Whether her role as an authorized signatory, without active participation or knowledge of the transaction details, constitutes sufficient proof of criminal intent or culpability.
- Requisite Element of Knowledge
- Whether the absence of any evidence linking Paz Dingle directly to the transaction or to the knowledge of insufficient funds negates the essential element of "knowledge" required for the offense.
- The implication of the government witness’s testimony, which exclusively identified Nestor Dingle in connection with the transaction and the subsequent issuance of the checks.
- Adequacy of Evidence Presented
- Whether the evidence on record supports the conviction of Paz Dingle by establishing her personal knowledge and participation in the offense.
- Whether reasonable doubt exists regarding her inadvertent signing of the checks without awareness of their intended use and the ensuing dishonor.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)