G.R. No. 152881 - Bayani Magdayao vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 152881)

Petitioner

Engr. Bayani Magdayao was charged, tried, and convicted for violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (checks without sufficient funds) arising from the issuance of PNB Check No. 399967 in the amount of P600,000.00 which was dishonored for insufficiency of funds.

Respondent

The People of the Philippines prosecuted the criminal case; the private offended party and complainant in the criminal information was Ricky Olvis, who received the check and deposited it in his account, after which it was dishonored.

Key Dates

Check dated: September 30, 1991. Check deposited: October 1, 1991. Criminal complaint filed by Olvis: September 4, 1992. Information filed in court: September 16, 1993. Trial proceedings with prosecution evidence begun: June 7, 1995 (continuations June 13, 1995, August 31, 1995, October 3, 1995, November 21, 1995). Trial court judgment: January 29, 1996. Court of Appeals judgment affirming RTC: December 21, 2001. Supreme Court decision denying petition: August 17, 2004.

Applicable Constitution and Legal Framework

Because the final decision was rendered in 2004, the 1987 Philippine Constitution governs the legal framework applicable to the decision. The statutory and procedural authorities applied in the case include B.P. Blg. 22 (Sections 1 and 2), the Revised Rules of Evidence (Rule 129 on best evidence and Rule 130 on secondary evidence), Rule 111, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, and relevant administrative circulars interpreting sentencing policy (Administrative Circulars Nos. 12-2000 and 13-2001).

Facts Established at Trial

Olvis testified that Magdayao issued PNB Check No. 399967 for P600,000.00 in payment of an obligation connected to a joint venture. Olvis deposited the check in his BPI-Family Bank account in October 1991; the drawee (PNB-Dipolog) dishonored the check with a dorsal notation “DAIF” (Drawn Against Insufficient Funds). Olvis returned the original dishonored check to Magdayao after Magdayao promised to replace it with two checks (P400,000.00 and P200,000.00); those replacement promises were not fulfilled and Olvis later filed the criminal complaint. The prosecution lacked the original check in court because the original had been returned to the petitioner; the prosecution introduced a photocopy of the check and the dorsal notation as exhibits, and the complainant identified the photocopy and the signature.

Procedural History

Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment. On multiple trial dates the petitioner and his counsel repeatedly failed to appear; the prosecution was permitted to proceed and presented Olvis as its witness. The trial court admitted the photocopy of the dishonored check after the petitioner failed to produce the original. The RTC convicted the petitioner under Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22 and ordered payment of P600,000.00 as civil liability; the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The petitioner sought relief by petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, which denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The petitioner principally argued: (1) the conviction was based improperly on a photocopy of the check and uncorroborated oral testimony in violation of the best evidence rule; (2) failure to positively identify the petitioner as drawer of the check; (3) alleged insufficiency of evidence supporting the RTC’s findings of fact; and (4) claimed error in awarding civil indemnity (asserting an erroneous amount) and in imposition of imprisonment instead of a fine.

Elements of the Offense Under B.P. Blg. 22

The Court reiterated the elements required for conviction under Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22: (1) the making, drawing and issuance of a check to apply on account or for value; (2) knowledge by the maker/drawer at the time of issuance that there were insufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank to pay the check in full upon presentment; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit (or it would have been dishonored but for a stop-payment order). The Court also emphasized that Section 2 makes the drawing and issuance of a check followed by dishonor within ninety days prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficiency, unless the drawer pays or makes arrangements within five banking days after notice.

Best Evidence Rule and Admissibility of the Photocopy

The Supreme Court acknowledged the primacy of the best evidence rule: when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, the original must ordinarily be produced (Rule 129, Section 3). However, secondary evidence (including photocopies) may be admissible under Rule 130 when the original is in the custody or control of the adverse party who has been given reasonable notice to produce it and fails to do so after satisfactory proof of existence. In this case the original check had been returned to and retained by the petitioner; the prosecution had no possession of the original and there was no legitimate impediment to producing it except the petitioner’s control. The petitioner had actual knowledge of the prosecution’s obligation to produce the original and repeatedly objected to use of a photocopy while nevertheless declining to produce the original himself. Given that the original was in the petitioner’s control, he was afforded reasonable notice and opportunity to produce it but deliberately withheld it. Under these circumstances, the Court held the admission of the photocopy was proper and that its evidentiary value was not vitiated by the petitioner’s conduct.

Proof of Dishonor and Corroboration

Although the prosecution did not call a bank employee to testify to the dorsal notation and the mechanical act of dishonor, the Court found no necessity for such testimony because the complainant had actual personal knowledge of the dishonor and the reason for it, and had returned the original to the petitioner after being informed. The complainant’s deposition and testimony, the dorsal notation (photocopy) indicating “DAIF,” and the petitioner’s own admissions and conduct were sufficient to prove the dishonor and its reason.

Knowledge Element and Prima Facie Presumption

The Court applied Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 to hold that the issuance and dishonor of the check within the relevant period gave rise to a prima facie presumption of the drawer’s knowledge of insufficiency of funds. The petitioner failed to rebut this presumption: he did not produce evidence to show payment or arrangements for payment within five banking days of notice, and his repeated failures to appear and to present evidence further undermined any contrary showing.

Identification and Petitioner’s Non-Appearance

Olvis was prepared to identify the petitioner as the drawer; however, identification was not completed on the day of the witn

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 152881)

Case and Decision Information

Reporter citation: 480 Phil. 374, Second Division, G.R. No. 152881, August 17, 2004.
Petitioner: Engr. Bayani Magdayao.
Respondent: People of the Philippines.
Nature of petition: Petition for review on certiorari from the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 20549 affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Dipolog City, Branch 8, convicting the petitioner of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22).
Supreme Court ponente: Justice Callejo, Sr.
Concurring Justices: Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ.
Lower court authors: CA decision penned by Justice Cancio C. Garcia with Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Bienvenido L. Reyes concurring; RTC decision penned by Judge Pacifico M. Garcia.

Antecedents / Accusatory Instrument

Information filed: September 16, 1993, charging violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
Accusatory portion (as charged): Alleged that on or about September 30, 1991, at Dipolog City, petitioner, knowing he did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank (Philippine National Bank, Dipolog Branch), willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously made, drew, issued and delivered to one Ricky Olvis PNB Check No. 399967 dated September 30, 1991 in the amount of P600,000.00; the check, when presented for payment, was dishonored for being drawn against insufficient funds; despite repeated demands petitioner failed to make good the check-as-value, to the damage and prejudice of Ricky Olvis; charged as contrary to law.

Arraignment and Plea

Petitioner arraigned and, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty.
Case set for trial; when called on June 7, 1995 for the prosecution to adduce evidence, petitioner and counsel were absent; prosecution moved to adduce evidence ex parte and was allowed.

Prosecution’s Evidence and Witness Testimony

Primary witness: Private complainant Ricky Olvis.
Direct examination highlights:
- Olvis testified petitioner drew and issued PNB Check No. 399967 dated September 30, 1991 for P600,000.00, drawn against petitioner’s account at PNB Dipolog, issued in payment of petitioner’s obligation to Olvis.
- Olvis deposited the check on October 1, 1991 in his account with BPI-Family Bank, Dipolog; the drawee bank dishonored the check with “Drawn Against Insufficient Funds” stamped on the dorsal portion.
- After notice of dishonor, petitioner pleaded for time to pay but reneged; Olvis filed criminal complaint on September 4, 1992 (I.S. No. 92-368).
- Petitioner offered to retrieve and replace the dishonored check with two checks (P400,000.00 and P200,000.00); Olvis returned original check to petitioner in reliance, but petitioner failed to pay.
- Olvis identified a photostatic copy of the check as Exhibit “A” and the dorsal portion as Exhibit “A-1”; Olvis identified petitioner’s signature on the copy as Bayani Magdayao’s.
- Olvis confirmed deposit timing (October 1991) and the dishonor notation on the back.
- Olvis testified the P600,000.00 remained unpaid as of trial.
Prosecution marked and offered a photocopy of PNB Check No. 399967 (Exh. “A”) and the dorsal portion (Exh. “A-1”) in evidence; court admitted the photocopy.

Documentary Evidence and Exhibits

Exhibits introduced by prosecution:
- Exhibit A: Photocopy (photostatic copy) of PNB Check No. 399967.
- Exhibit A-1: Photocopy of the dorsal portion of the accused check showing notation “DAIF” (interpreted as “Drawn Against Insufficient Fund”).
Original check: Not produced at trial; testimony indicates original was returned to petitioner when he purportedly replaced it with two checks.
Petitioner acknowledged in motions and filings that original was in his possession and that he caused non-payment of the dishonored check.

Petitioner’s Conduct, Motions, and Defense Tactics

Petitioner and counsel’s repeated absences from trial on several dates (June 7, June 13, August 31, October 3, November 21, 1995), resulting in ex parte testimony and eventual submission of case for decision.
Petitioner filed various motions:
- Motion for reconsideration of order submitting case; denied January 26, 1996.
- Omnibus Supplemental Motion and to Allow Him to Adduce Evidence (alleging among other things prosecution’s failure to present original and that the check was paid).
- Special Manifestation asserting inadmissibility of photocopy as violative of best evidence rule.
- Motion to suspend proceedings admitting return of original by Olvis and that petitioner caused non-payment.
- Motion to withdraw counsel; counsel changes reflected.
Petitioner repeatedly failed to appear for identification by Olvis despite a June 7, 1995 RTC Order directing petitioner to appear under pain of contempt to allow identification.
Defense did not produce the original check; did not adduce promised evidence despite opportunities and court orders.

Trial Court Proceedings and Orders

Trial court granted prosecution’s motion to adduce evidence ex parte when petitioner absent.
Trial court set continuations (June 13, 1995, August 31, October 3, November 21, 1995) and issued order of June 7, 1995 directing petitioner’s appearance for identification under pain of contempt.
On November 21, 1995, petitioner and counsel did not appear; prosecution formally offered Exh. A, which was admitted; prosecution rested; court declared case submitted for decision.
Trial court denied petitioner’s motions to permit adduction of evidence and motions for reconsideration.
Judgment rendered by RTC on January 29, 1996, convicting petitioner of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 and pronouncing sentence: imprisonment for six (6) months (arresto mayor) and to pay costs; further ordered petitioner to pay private complainant P600,000.00 corresponding to his obligation due to the private offended party.
Trial court’s fallo quoted: “WHEREFORE, finding the guilt of the accused established beyond reasonable doubt, the herein accused, Engr. Bayani Magdayao is convicted of the crime charged against him for Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, as principal by direct participation, and pursuant to Section 1 thereof sentenced to suffer the penalty of im