G.R. No. 224979 - Lim vs. People

Private respondent Blue Pacific Holdings, Inc. (BPHI) granted a loan amounting to P1,149,500.00 to Rochelle Benito, as evidenced by a promissory note acknowledged before a notary public on July 29, 2003.
Petitioner Ivy Lim signed as co-maker for her sister, thereby assuming joint liability for the loan.
In connection with the loan, Lim and her sister issued a series of eleven (11) postdated Equitable PCI Bank checks with a face value of P67,617.65 each, totaling P743,794.15.

Out of the eleven (11) checks issued, ten (10) were dishonored upon presentation for payment due to being drawn against a closed account.
BPHI sent Lim various demand letters to secure the outstanding amount, culminating in a final demand letter dated June 28, 2005, whose receipt was purportedly proven by a registry return card bearing Lim’s signature.

Lim was charged with 11 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for failing to pay the amounts corresponding to the dishonored checks.
During arraignment on December 13, 2006, Lim, with counsel, pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The preliminary conference saw admissions regarding the trial court’s jurisdiction, Lim’s identity as the accused, the existence of the complaint affidavit, the promissory note, and the due execution of the 11 checks with BPHI as payee.

The prosecution presented BPHI Finance Officer Juanito Enriquez as its key witness, together with documentary evidence including the complaint-affidavit, the promissory note, the 11 checks, and several demand letters.
Lim raised defenses alleging:

She could not have signed and issued the checks on July 29, 2003 in the presence of Enriquez because she was abroad as shown by a certification from the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID).
BPHI lacked the necessary permit to conduct financing business.
The checks were issued to facilitate illegal trafficking of teachers to the United States, a claim supported by parallel criminal actions on human trafficking.
There was no valuable consideration provided for the issuance of the checks.

On May 22, 2013, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) rendered a Joint Decision finding Lim guilty beyond reasonable doubt on 10 counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 and imposing a fine based on the face value of the ten (10) checks, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Civil liability was simultaneously imposed, ordering Lim to pay the face value of all 11 checks plus interest and attorney’s fees.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and later the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the MeTC’s decision, with the CA denying Lim’s petition for review.

Lim contended that an unauthenticated registry return card could not prove receipt of the notice of dishonor nor serve as the sole basis for conviction.
She argued that a mere comparison of signatures on the subject checks and the registry return card did not sufficiently authenticate that the checks were issued by her.
Lim objected to the admission of the promissory note during trial, claiming it had neither been properly identified, authenticated, nor testified upon, and asserted that lack of valuable consideration was a valid defense.
The petition, however, was found to lack merit although the CA modified the imposition of the penalty and the computation of interest on actual damages.

Whether an unauthenticated registry return card is sufficient to prove that Lim received the notice of dishonor for the checks.
Whether the method of proof—comparing signatures between the checks and the registry return card—is valid under the Rules of Evidence and prevailing jurisprudence.

Whether the evidence, including the testimony of BPHI’s Finance Officer Enriquez and the documentary records, is sufficient to prove that Lim personally issued the checks in question.
Whether the alleged unauthenticated nature of the checks affects the establishment of personal liability for the violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

Whether the promissory note, which was not explicitly produced, identified, or properly authenticated during trial, should have been excluded from evidence.
Whether the failure to properly present the promissory note undermines the establishment of consideration in the underlying business transaction.

Whether Lim is criminally liable for 10 counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 based on the evidence presented.
Whether Lim is also civilly liable to BPHI for the face value of the 11 checks, with the corresponding interest and additional costs, despite her raised defenses.