Case Digest (G.R. No. 140665)
Facts:
Victor Ting "Seng Dee" and Emily Chan-Azajar, petitioners, filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 challenging the February 12, 1999 decision of the Court of Appeals; G.R. No. 140665, promulgated November 13, 2000, was decided by the Supreme Court Third Division, Melo, J., writing for the Court. The petition sought reversal of the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of the Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 45, which had on March 16, 1995 convicted petitioners of seven counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law).The underlying facts, as recited by petitioners, are that Juliet Ting (also called Chan Sioc Hiu) obtained loans totaling P2,750,000 from private complainant Josefina K. Tagle in 1991–1992 and issued eleven post‑dated checks that were later dishonored. Because of Juliet’s financial troubles she asked petitioners to take over her furniture business and its obligations; petitioners agreed and issued nineteen checks in replacement of Juliet’s eleven checks. The takeover did not occur; petitioners then asked Juliet to reassume the obligation and replace the nineteen checks, whereupon Juliet allegedly issued twenty‑three Far East Bank checks to Tagle. Tagle, however, deposited seven of the nineteen checks previously given by petitioners with MetroBank; those seven were dishonored for being "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds."
Tagle’s version was that in April 1993 petitioners borrowed P950,000 from her and issued several post‑dated checks as payment; upon presentment these checks were dishonored. Tagle sent (or caused to be sent) a demand letter by registered mail and, after receiving no payment, filed seven separate informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (consolidated as Criminal Cases No. 94-131945 to 94-131951). The informations charged issuance of checks knowing there were insufficient funds, dishonor upon presentment, and failure to pay or arrange payment within five banking days after notice.
The seven criminal cases were consolidated and jointly tried. At arraignment petitioners pleaded not guilty. During trial, the prosecution presented only the private complainant; the testimony of the bank representative was dispensed with after petitioners’ counsel admitted the dishonor of the checks. On March 16, 1995, the RTC found petitioners guilty in each case and sentenced them to one year imprisonment and ordered them to pay Tagle P950,000.00 in aggregate.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (C.A.-G.R. No. 18054), which on February 12, 1999 affirmed the RTC decision; its denial of reconsideration prompted this Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court. The prosecution’s evidence at trial included the dishonored checks, MetroBank return slips stamped "DAIF," a copy of a demand letter purporting to have been sent by registered mail, and the registry return receipt; the prosecution did not present the mailing witness ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the evidence sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, in particular the issuer’s knowledge of insufficiency of funds (i.e., receipt of notice of dishonor and failure to pay or arrange payment)?
- May petitioners be held civilly liable to private complainant for the alleged P950,000 indebtednes...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)