Case Digest (G.R. No. 141466)
Facts:
Eliza T. Tan v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 141466, January 19, 2001, Supreme Court First Division, Pardo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Eliza T. Tan, vice-president of Hometown Development, Inc. (HDI), contracted on January 28, 1992 with construction firm F.M. Francisco & Associates (FMF), whose president is complainant Fidel M. Francisco, Jr., to perform land development work at South Garden Homes in Dasmariñas, Cavite. The Construction Agreement provided for payment by monthly progress billings.
A dispute arose after FMF allegedly failed to complete the work and the contract was terminated. Petitioner issued several checks as partial payments and later issued replacement checks, including Philtrust Bank Check No. A000913 dated February 28, 1993 for P23,739.09. That check was presented and dishonored; FMF sent a demand letter and subsequently filed criminal charges under B.P. Blg. 22.
At trial, petitioner testified that she had replaced the contested checks with cash (acknowledged by a voucher dated March 30, 1993) and later requested stop-payment instructions to the bank because the amounts had been paid. A bank representative, Aileen Sy, testified that petitioner had a substantial credit line (P25 million) and that the returned check bore the stamps “Payment Stopped‑Funded” and “DAUD” (drawn against uncollected deposits), indicating the bank could have honored the check. The wife of complainant disputed the cash-replacement voucher’s authenticity and maintained that FMF always received checks.
The Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 95, convicted petitioner on May 24, 1996 of violating B.P. Blg. 22, sentenced her to one year imprisonment, and ordered her to pay P23,739.09 with interest. The Court of Appeals, in CA‑G.R. CR No. 20470, promulgated October 22, 1999, affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto. Petitioner sought recourse in the Supreme Court by filing a petition on February 1, 2000; the Court gave due course to the petition and resolved the appeal.
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner violated Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 — i.e., that she knew at the time she issued Philtrust Bank Check No. A000913 that she did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank to pay the check in full upon presentment, and that the check was dishonored for insufficiency (or would have been dishonored for such reason absent the drawer’s stop order)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)