Title
Josef vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 146424
Decision Date
Nov 18, 2005
Albino Josef issued dishonored checks to Agustin Alarilla, leading to BP 22 violations. SC upheld conviction, rejecting defenses of cash payment and good faith, affirming imprisonment as penalty.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 150175)

Background Facts

Between June and August 1991, Albino Josef, who operated a shoe manufacturing business based in Marikina, issued 26 postdated checks to Agustin Alarilla, a leather supplier from Meycauayan, Bulacan. The checks were drawn against Josef's accounts at Associated Bank and Far East Bank & Trust Company. When Alarilla presented these checks for payment, they were dishonored due to insufficient funds associated with closed accounts. Despite Josef issuing a new set of checks in replacement, these were also dishonored, prompting Alarilla to file criminal complaints against him.

Trial and Conviction

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan found Josef guilty of 26 counts of violating BP 22, imposing a penalty of six months for each conviction. The RTC's ruling was based on the elements of the offense, which Josef admitted to. Josef's defenses included assertions that he had already paid the value of the checks in cash, challenging the admissibility of photocopies of the checks, and claiming he acted in good faith.

Dishonor of Checks

The elements necessary to prove a violation of BP 22 include the issuance of a check, knowledge of insufficient funds at the time of issuance, and the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank. The court found that all elements were established in the case. Josef's acknowledgment of having issued the checks and their eventual dishonor sufficed to support the prosecution's claims.

Admissibility of Evidence

Josef contested the admission of photocopies of the dishonored checks, referencing the Best Evidence Rule, which generally requires the original document for evidence. However, both the RTC and Court of Appeals determined that the photocopies were admissible. Josef implicitly recognized the checks were in his possession, thus curing any potential flaws in the prosecution's evidence. The photocopies were deemed faithful representations of the original documents.

Good Faith Defense

Josef's claim of good faith was found to be irrelevant to the offenses under BP 22, which is classified as malum prohibitum, meaning the act itself constitutes an offense regardless of intent or good faith. The law is stringent regarding the issuance of bad checks, and whether malice or intent was present does not mitigate the offense.

Imposition of Penalty

Josef argued that under Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, a fine rather than imprisonment should be the penalty for violations of BP 22, especially for first-time offenders. However, the court affirmed that the imp

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.