G.R. No. 146424 - Josef vs. People

Petitioner Albino Josef, a Marikina-based manufacturer and seller of shoes, entered into a commercial transaction with private respondent Agustin Alarilla, a leather products seller from Meycauayan, Bulacan.
Between June and August 1991, petitioner purchased materials from respondent and issued a total of 26 postdated checks as payment.
The checks were drawn against petitioner’s accounts with Associated Bank and Far East Bank & Trust Company (Marikina branches).

When respondent presented the original checks for encashment, they were dishonored because the corresponding bank accounts had been closed.
Respondent informed petitioner of the dishonor and demanded payment of the check values.
After negotiations, petitioner produced a new set of postdated checks as replacements for the original dishonored ones.
The respondent returned the original dishonored checks but retained photocopies for record purposes.
The replacement checks, when deposited in Westmont Bank, were also dishonored.

Based on the multiple instances of dishonored checks, the respondent filed criminal complaints against petitioner for violation of BP 22 (the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law).
The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan conducted a preliminary investigation and subsequently filed 26 Informations with the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan for the 26 counts of violation.
The trial court convicted petitioner on all counts, imposing six months of imprisonment for each violation.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari.
Procedurally, petitioner initially misnamed the case by omitting the People of the Philippines, which was later corrected by subsequent impleading in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Petitioner raised defenses including an alleged cash payment to respondent, objection to the admission of photocopies of checks, and a claim of acting in good faith.

Petitioner challenged the admissibility of photocopies of the checks under the Best Evidence Rule, claiming he should have been given reasonable notice to produce the originals.
The Court of Appeals maintained that the trial court did not err in admitting the photocopies since petitioner had previously produced the original checks in open court, with the exception of five missing ones.
Petitioner’s admission of possessing the original checks invalidated his contention against their photocopies.

Petitioner invoked Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, contending that the penalty imposed should have been a fine rather than imprisonment, referencing a dissenting opinion.
The majority held that while the circular provides a rule of preference for fines in cases of good faith errors, it does not preclude imprisonment where the circumstances warrant it.
The Court reiterated that the discretion in choosing the penalty (fine or imprisonment) remains wholly within the trial court’s judgment based on the facts and offender’s circumstances.

Whether petitioner’s issuance of 26 postdated checks, which were subsequently dishonored, constitutes violation of BP 22 by satisfying all the statutory elements of the offense.
Whether the statutory presumption of knowledge regarding insufficient funds attaches automatically when a check is presented and dishonored within 90 days, and if petitioner failed to rebut such presumption.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting photocopies of the checks as evidence in lieu of the originals, especially considering petitioner’s contention regarding the Best Evidence Rule.
Whether petitioner’s claim of having paid the respondent in cash and acting in good faith can exonerate him from liability under a malum prohibitum offense like BP 22.
Whether the application and interpretation of Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 should have led to the imposition of a fine (or a lighter penalty) rather than imprisonment.
Whether the initial procedural omission of the People of the Philippines as an indispensable party affects the substantive justification of the conviction.