Case Digest (G.R. No. 191404)
Facts:
Eumelia R. Mitra v. People of the Philippines and Felicisimo S. Tarcelo, G.R. No. 191404, July 05, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Eumelia R. Mitra was the treasurer of Lucky Nine Credit Corporation (LNCC); Florencio L. Cabrera, Jr. (now deceased) was LNCC’s president. Between 1996 and 1999 private respondent Felicisimo S. Tarcelo invested funds with LNCC and received, as customary for such placements, checks representing his placements plus interest. LNCC issued multiple checks (dated between January and March 1999) that, when presented for payment, were dishonored with the reason “account closed.” The checks at issue aggregated P925,000.00 and were signed by Mitra and Cabrera.
After unsuccessful oral demands for payment, Tarcelo filed seven criminal informations in 2002 for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Batangas City. Following trial, the MTCC convicted Mitra and Cabrera and, in its May 21, 2007 decision, imposed fines for each offense with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and adjudged them civilly liable in solidum to Tarcelo for P925,000.00.
Mitra and Cabrera appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 2, Batangas City. The RTC affirmed the MTCC on August 22, 2007 and denied their motion for reconsideration. Cabrera later died; Mitra alone pursued further review. She filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31740, which rendered a Decision on July 31, 2009 and issued a Resolution on February 11, 2010 dismissing her petition. Mitra then filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the CA rulings.
In the courts below Mitra argued, among other defenses, that (a) she only signed blank checks (no payee, amount, or maturity date) and did not know when or to whom the checks would be issued; (b) she signed some checks merely to avoid dela...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Must the elements of an offense under BP 22 be proved first against the corporation that owns the account before liability can attach to the individual signatories of a corporate check?
- Was there proper service of the notice of dishonor and demand to pay upon petitioner Mitra (...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)