Case Summary (G.R. No. 142641)
Factual Background and Case Procedural History
Pacifico B. Arceo, Jr. obtained loans from Josefino Cenizal totaling PHP 150,000. Subsequently, petitioner issued BPI Check No. 163255 dated August 4, 1991, in favor of Cenizal for PHP 150,000 as payment. Cenizal delayed depositing the check due to petitioner’s repeated verbal promises to replace it with cash. Upon eventual deposit, the check was dishonored by the bank for insufficient funds. Petitioner failed to satisfy payment even after formal notice, prompting Cenizal to file a complaint for estafa and violation of BP 22. Despite the loss of the physical check and return slip due to a fire, Cenizal executed an Affidavit of Loss. Both trial and appellate courts found petitioner guilty of violating BP 22. Petitioner’s appeals were denied, leading to this petition for review.
Petitioner's Main Arguments
Petitioner raised four points:
- The prosecution’s failure to present the original dishonored check as evidence.
- The check was presented for encashment beyond the 90-day limit set under BP 22.
- The notice requirement was not complied with as petitioner was given only three days to pay instead of five banking days.
- He had already paid the amount owed to Cenizal, negating liability.
Interpretation of the 90-Day Presentment Period
Under Section 1 of BP 22, a person who issues a check knowing at issuance that there are insufficient funds is liable if the check is dishonored upon presentment within ninety (90) days. The Court clarified that the 90-day period is not an element of the crime but relates to the reasonable period for which the drawer must maintain sufficient funds. Citing prior rulings, the Court stated that under prevailing banking practices, six months is regarded as the reasonable period for presenting a check. Consequently, the presentation of the check after 120 days (four months) was within the acceptable period, maintaining petitioner’s obligation and liability.
Applicability of the Best Evidence Rule
Petitioner’s insistence on the physical presentation of the dishonored check as conclusive evidence was rejected. The Court explained the best evidence rule under Rule 130, Section 3 of the Rules of Court applies only when the content of the document is at issue. Here, the material fact was the execution and issuance of the check, not its specific content, thus testimonial evidence was admissible. The complainant adequately established the existence, due execution, and subsequent loss of the check and its return slip through affidavits and testimony. Furthermore, petitioner admitted he issued the check and that it was dishonored for insufficient funds.
Elements of the Offense under BP 22 and Their Presence
The Court identified the elements of violation of the first paragraph of BP 22 as follows:
- The making, drawing, and issuance of a check to apply on account or for value;
- Knowledge on the part of the drawer that sufficient funds or credit did not exist at the time of issuance;
- Subsequent dishonor of the check due to insufficient funds or credit.
All elements were clearly established: petitioner issued the postdated check as payment for a loan, knew his funds were insufficient (as evidenced by repeated promises to replace the check with cash), and the check was dishonored when finally presented.
Notice of Dishonor and Payment Demand Compliance
The Court found that petitioner wa
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 142641)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Pacifico B. Arceo, Jr. obtained a P100,000 loan from Josefino Cenizal on March 14, 1991, followed by an additional P50,000 loan.
- In consideration of these loans, petitioner issued BPI Check No. 163255, postdated August 4, 1991, for P150,000, delivered to Cenizal at his Quezon City residence.
- Cenizal delayed depositing the check, relying on petitioner’s verbal promises (made seven times) to replace the check with cash.
- After petitioner failed to fulfill his promises, Cenizal deposited the check; the drawee bank, Bank of the Philippine Islands, informed Cenizal on December 5, 1991, that the check bounced due to insufficient funds.
- Attempts to inform petitioner failed as he had already left his residence; Cenizal’s lawyer sent a letter demanding payment within three days, but petitioner did not comply.
- Cenizal executed an affidavit and submitted pertinent documents supporting a complaint for estafa and violation of BP 22 at the City Prosecutor’s office on January 20, 1992.
- The information was formally filed on March 27, 1992.
- The check and return slip were lost due to a fire near Cenizal’s residence on September 16, 1992; Cenizal executed an Affidavit of Loss regarding these documents.
- The trial court found petitioner guilty for violating BP 22; the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision on April 28, 1999, and denied reconsideration on March 27, 2000.
- Petitioner filed a petition for review, invoking errors related to presentation of evidence, timeliness of check presentment, notice requirements, and alleged prior payment.
Legal Issues Raised by Petitioner
- Whether petitioner’s conviction was improper due to the prosecution’s failure to present the dishonored check in evidence during trial.
- Whether the presentation of the check beyond the 90-day statutory period under BP 22 absolved petitioner from liability.
- Whether the notice requirement was not complied with because petitioner was given only three days to pay instead of five banking days.
- Whether petitioner was relieved from liability due to alleged prior payment of the obligation to Cenizal.
Applicable Law: Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)
- Section 1 penalizes persons who issue checks knowing at issue time that there are insufficient funds or credit in the drawee bank to honor them upon presentment.
- The law imposes liability even if funds were sufficient at the time of issuance but were withdrawn or funds became insufficient within 90 days from the check’s date, causing dishonor.
- Section 2 establ