G.R. No. 191404 - Mitra vs. People

Petitioner: Eumelia R. Mitra, Treasurer of Lucky Nine Credit Corporation (LNCC).
Other Key Personnel: Florencio L. Cabrera, Jr. (deceased), the President of LNCC.
Respondents: The People of the Philippines and Felicisimo S. Tarcelo, a private individual who invested money in LNCC.
LNCC’s Business: Engaged in money lending activities, wherein money placement transactions were conducted using checks as a form of payment.

Timeframe: Between 1996 and 1999, Tarcelo invested money in LNCC.
Usual Practice: In money placement transactions, investors received checks from LNCC reflecting the principal invested plus interest.
List of Checks: Several checks issued by LNCC—with signatures of Mitra and Cabrera—were detailed with their respective bank, issue dates, check dates, numbers, and amounts.
Dishonor of Checks: When Tarcelo presented these checks for payment, they were dishonored due to the account being closed.

Tarcelo’s Actions: He made several oral demands for payment on LNCC after the checks were dishonored but was frustrated in his efforts.
Legal Relief: In 2002, constrained by the failure to collect, Tarcelo caused the filing of seven information cases under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in Batangas City.
Charges: The charges related to the violation of BP 22 were initiated, with the total amount involved amounting to P925,000.00.

MTCC Decision (May 21, 2007): Both Mitra and Cabrera were found guilty of violation of BP 22.

Specific fines imposed per each criminal case ranged from P100,000.00 to P200,000.00.
They were also held civilly liable, jointly ordered to pay Tarcelo P925,000.00.

Appeal: Both Mitra and Cabrera appealed the MTCC decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Batangas City, which affirmed the decision.
Post-Decision Developments: Cabrera later died. Mitra filed a petition for review on issues raised from the dismissal of her previous petition by the Court of Appeals (CA).

Mitra asserted that the checks were signed in blank without indicating payee, amount, or date of maturity.
She argued that she was unaware when and to whom the checks would eventually be issued.
It was also contended that the signing was done merely to avoid delay in LNCC transactions, as she was not regularly holding office at LNCC.

Mitra claimed improper service of the notice of dishonor, arguing that an essential element of the offense (knowledge of insufficiency via proper notice) was missing.

The Legal Basis: Her petition further posited that prior to the determination of criminal liability, the elements of BP 22 should be first proven against the corporation, with liability attaching to the signatories only after such corporate violation was established.

Whether all the elements of the offense of violation of BP 22 must be proven against the corporation that owns the current account from which the bouncing checks were drawn.
Whether liability on the individual signatories (such as Mitra) should be contingent upon finding the corporation’s liability.

Whether the notice of dishonor and subsequent demand for payment were properly served on Mitra (and, by extension, on the corporate officers) as required by law.
The implications of notice service on establishing the requisite state of mind (knowledge of insufficiency of funds).