Title
Dingle vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Case
G.R. No. 75243
Decision Date
Mar 16, 1987
Paz Dingle, co-signatory of dishonored checks, acquitted under BP 22 due to lack of proven knowledge of insufficient funds or transaction details.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 75243)

Transaction and Dishonor of Checks

The case arises from a business agreement where PMD Enterprises, owned by the Dingles, was to sell 400 tons of washed silica sand to Ernesto Ang. Nestor Dingle, who managed the family business, failed to fulfill this contract. Consequently, he issued two postdated checks, signed by both Nestor and Paz Dingle, amounting to P51,885.93 to Ang as compensation for the undelivered goods. These checks were subsequently dishonored due to insufficient funds. In an attempt to settle the matter, Nestor issued a bank check for the same amount, which also bounced.

Charges and Initial Sentencing

Following the dishonor of the checks, Nestor Dingle received two letters demanding payment, which he ignored. As a result, both spouses were charged with violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the Anti-Bouncing Check Law. The trial court found them guilty, imposing a sentence of six months imprisonment for each, alongside a fine of P52,000.00 and an order to indemnify Ang the amount of P51,885.92.

Appeal and Intermediate Appellate Court Decision

Paz Dingle appealed the conviction, arguing her lack of knowledge regarding the bounced checks and the underlying transaction. The Intermediate Appellate Court modified the trial court's decision, reducing her sentence to 30 days of imprisonment. Despite this modification, Paz Dingle maintained her innocence and contended that she should not be held criminally liable.

Prosecution's Testimony and Acquittal

The Solicitor General supported her appeal, asserting that testimony from the prosecution witness, Ernesto Ang, indicated that he exclusively dealt with Nestor Dingle regarding the transaction. Ang did not implicate Paz Dingle in any manner, confirming that all communications, including the demand letters, were directed solely to Nestor. This established that Paz Dingle had signed the checks in blank without knowledge of their issuance or the relevant transaction.

Legal Principle Applied

The Supreme Court referenced the case of Florentino Lozano vs. Hon. Martinez, highlighting that a key element of the offense under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is the knowledge of the check

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.