Title
Ibasco vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 117488
Decision Date
Sep 5, 1996
Petitioner convicted under B.P. Blg. 22 for issuing dishonored checks; SC upheld jurisdiction, sufficiency of evidence, and rejected defenses of guarantee or accommodation.
dishonored checks
accommodation or guarantee defense
criminal law

Case Summary (G.R. No. 117488)

Factual Background

The evidence showed that Maria Negro Trivinio and her late husband operated an animal feed mill in Gumaca, Quezon. Petitioner and his wife operated a piggery in Daet, Camarines Norte. In late 1983, petitioner and his wife requested a credit accommodation from the Trivinios for the supply of ingredients used in manufacturing animal feeds. Pursuant to the credit arrangement, the Trivinios made three deliveries of darak with a total value of P51,566.49. In payment, petitioner issued three postdated checks drawn against United Coconut Planters Bank, Daet Branch, payable to Manuel Trivinio: Check No. 41909 for P15,576.30 postdated February 24, 1984; Check No. 41910 for P17,900.00 postdated March 23, 1984; and Check No. DAT 41911 for P18,090.10 postdated April 18, 1984.

Upon presentment to the bank on their due dates, all checks were dishonored for lack of sufficient funds. The Trivinios notified petitioner of the dishonor. Petitioner responded by telegram offering real property in Daet as security and invited the Trivinios to inspect it. The Trivinios did not inspect the property because petitioner allegedly told them it was across the sea. For failure to settle his obligation, the criminal cases were filed.

Information, Pleas, and Consolidated Trial

The RTC records showed that, in Criminal Case No. 2755-G, the information alleged that petitioner issued Check No. DAT 41911 in the amount of P18,090.10, payable to Manuel Trivinio, and that petitioner knew at issuance that he had insufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank, leading to dishonor upon presentment. Similar allegations appeared in Criminal Cases Nos. 2756-G and 2757-G, except for the specific check numbers, amounts, and the dates of the alleged violations. Petitioner pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. The cases were consolidated and jointly tried.

Motion to Dismiss and Issue of Jurisdiction

After the presentation of evidence, the trial court required the parties to submit memoranda. Before submitting his memorandum, petitioner’s new counsel filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the checks were “prepared, issued and delivered” at petitioner’s office in Daet, Camarines Norte.

In its Order of 14 November 1991, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss. The RTC relied on the informations alleging that the violations occurred in Barangay Camohaguin, Gumaca, Quezon, and on evidence presented—particularly the affidavits and testimony offered by the parties—that the checks were issued and delivered in the place alleged.

Petitioner proceeded to trial notwithstanding the denial. On 17 December 1991, the RTC promulgated its decision dated 20 November 1991, convicting petitioner in all three cases.

RTC Ruling: Criminal Liability Under B.P. Blg. 22

The RTC imposed penalties of one (1) year imprisonment and a fine in each case, with fines set at P36,180.20 in Criminal Case No. 2755-G, P35,800.00 in Criminal Case No. 2756-G, and P31,152.60 in Criminal Case No. 2757-G.

On the nature of the offense, the RTC treated violations of B.P. Blg. 22 as mala prohibita, holding that criminal intent was not necessary because the law was designed to prevent the proliferation of worthless checks and the damage they inflict on banking and commerce. It ruled that defenses such as good faith and absence of criminal intent were unavailing in this type of prosecution. It also dismissed petitioner’s attempt to reframe the matter as a civil dispute over the quality of the delivered animal feeds and the alleged losses of the piggery, stating that such issues could support a civil action but could not erase the fact that the issued checks were dishonored.

On jurisdiction, the RTC credited the testimony of Maria Negro Trivinio, which it found sufficient to establish that the checks were delivered and related events occurred in the alleged place.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Rulings

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals and raised four principal errors: (a) the denial of the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; (b) insufficiency of proof beyond reasonable doubt; (c) the claim that liability should be civil rather than criminal; and (d) the alleged need to disregard the testimony of Maria Negro for being unclear, unconvincing, and incredible.

In its decision dated 11 August 1994, the Court of Appeals rejected each argument and affirmed the RTC in toto.

Venue and Jurisdiction Under the “Continuing Offense” Doctrine

On jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals agreed with the RTC. It noted that petitioner himself had presented Maria Trivinio as a witness whose sworn statement allegedly repudiated petitioner’s jurisdictional theory. It also ruled that a violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is in the nature of a continuing offense, referencing earlier jurisprudence that explained how the act of making or drawing and issuance, and the knowledge of insufficiency, could be treated as continuing eventualities for purposes of venue.

In addition, the Court of Appeals treated the allegations in the information as controlling for venue and jurisdiction, citing that jurisdiction or venue is determined by the allegations in the information. It also invoked cases holding that while the place where the check is written or made does not necessarily control, the place of issuance and/or delivery, as reflected in the allegations and evidence, vests the proper trial court with jurisdiction.

Distinction Between B.P. Blg. 22 and Estafa

The Court of Appeals rejected petitioner’s argument that the checks were issued only as a guarantee for feeds delivered and that no estafa could lie. It held that petitioner failed to distinguish a B.P. Blg. 22 violation from estafa under Art. 315 (2) (d) of the Revised Penal Code. It ruled that B.P. Blg. 22 applies even where dishonored checks were issued as a guarantee or merely to secure an obligation, and that the law does not turn on whether the dishonored check was issued to pay an obligation or to guarantee it.

Proof of Knowledge and Credibility of Witness

On the claim that the prosecution did not prove that petitioner knew of insufficient funds at the time of issuance, the Court of Appeals held that the mere issuance of a dishonored check gives rise to the presumption of knowledge. It likewise found no persuasive reason to disregard Maria Negro’s testimony.

Supreme Court Proceedings and Issues Presented

Petitioner maintained his challenges before the Supreme Court. He reiterated the arguments he raised earlier and added that the Court of Appeals erred in applying the doctrine that the mere issuance of a bad check is already a crime. Petitioner admitted that the checks were dishonored but argued that they were issued not for value but for accommodation or guarantee, invoking Magno vs. Court of Appeals and the position that the defense was available under DOJ Ministry Circular No. 4 for checks issued prior to 8 August 1984.

Petitioner also invoked the earlier DOJ interpretation and later reversal of the circulars, urging application of Co vs. Court of Appeals to his situation.

The Office of the Solicitor General countered that the RTC had jurisdiction because the checks were delivered to Manuel Trivinio in Gumaca, Quezon, and that all elements of B.P. Blg. 22 were present. It likewise asserted that knowledge of insufficiency was legally presumed from dishonor and that the “accommodation/guarantee” defense lacked merit under the governing doctrine in the light of the facts proven.

The Court’s Ruling: Conviction Affirmed

The Supreme Court sustained petitioner’s conviction. It reaffirmed that a violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is in the nature of a continuing crime. It then addressed venue and jurisdiction by explaining that venue is determined by the place where the essential elements of making, issuing, or drawing, and delivery, are committed.

Delivery as the Decisive Act for Venue

Relying on the discussion in People vs. Yabut, the Court explained the theoretical basis: an accused charged with a transitory offense may be tried in a jurisdiction where the offense was in part committed; however, the delivery of the instrument is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation. The Court then examined the testimony and found that Maria Negro categorically stated that the checks were delivered by petitioner to their residence in Gumaca, Quezon.

The Court also reiterated the settled rule that when the issue involves witness credibility, appellate courts generally do not disturb the trial court’s findings, given the trial court’s superior opportunity to observe the witness. It found no oversight in the trial court’s decision to credit Maria Negro. The Court further reasoned that delivery in fact was plausibly made at Gumaca because it was the business place of Manuel Trivinio and the place from which the animal feeds were delivered. Consequently, payment was considered effected at Gumaca, Quezon.

Presumption of Knowledge and Rejection of Accommodation Theory

The Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s accommodation defense and held that Magno was inapplicable to the proven facts. It distinguished Magno by emphasizing that in that case the bounced checks served as a warranty deposit in a lease arrangement where the lessor-supplier financed the deposit and the maker had not received a real account or credit for value; the maker was not a true debtor but was made an unwilling participant in a collateral scheme; and the payee had allegedly been aware of insufficiency before issuance.

The Court likewise rejected petitioner’s attempt to treat his case as factually analogous to Co vs. Court of Appeals. While acknowledging that Co had recognized that dishonored checks issued before 8 August 1984 could qualify as a valid defense under DOJ Ministry Circular No. 4, the Court held that the factual milieu differed. It found that petitioner issued the checks in payment of his indebtedness, not to accommodate the Trivinios or to secure

...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.

About Privacy Terms