Case Digest (G.R. No. 138669)
Facts:
Steve Tan and Marciano Tan v. Fabian Mendez, Jr., G.R. No. 138669, June 06, 2002, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners sought to set aside the Court of Appeals’ January 22, 1999 decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 20030 (and the Court of Appeals’ May 13, 1999 resolution denying reconsideration) affirming the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iriga City, Branch 37, which convicted petitioners of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law).
Petitioners, owners of Master Tours and Travel Corporation and operators of Philippine Lawin Bus Co., Inc., maintained a credit arrangement with respondent Fabian Mendez, Jr., owner of gasoline stations, who also acted as petitioners’ booking and ticketing agent in Iriga City. Under the arrangement, petitioners’ drivers obtained fuel and lubricants on credit and paid by checks; respondent remitted ticket-sale proceeds to petitioners likewise by checks. Some remittances from the Baao booking office were managed separately by another agent, Elias Bacsain.
On June 4, 1991 petitioners issued Far East Bank and Trust Company check no. 704227 for P58,237.75 to respondent as payment for fuel and oil; the check was dishonored upon presentment for insufficiency of funds. Respondent sent a demand letter dated June 21, 1991; payment was not made, and he filed an information for violation of B.P. 22 against petitioners in the RTC. Petitioners pleaded not guilty and went to trial.
At trial, respondent testified that several checks (totaling P235,387.33 and including the P58,237.75 check) were dishonored and that demand was made. Petitioners’ defense was that the indebtedness evidenced by the dishonored check had been extinguished by offset/compensation against returned unencashed checks representing ticket-sale remittances (a memorandum dated June 10, 1991 showed returned checks totaling P66,839.25 and claimed a residual balance). Petitioner Marciano admitted drawing the subject check and conceded it lacked sufficient funds at issuance due to uncollected receivables, but insisted on offset; he could not prove respondent’s express agreement to such offset.
The RTC found petitioners guilty of violating B.P. 22, sentenced them to six months’ imprisonment, ordered indemnity of P58,237.75 with legal interest, and imposed costs. The Court of Appeals af...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit error of law in affirming petitioners’ conviction for violation of B.P. Blg. 22?
- Can payment by compensation or offset preclude criminal prosecution for violation of B.P. Bl...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)