Case Summary (G.R. No. 130038)
Key Dates
– August 25–26, 1990: Issuance of two Metrobank checks totaling ₱541,668.00
– June 5, 1991: Filing of two informations for violations of B.P. Blg. 22
– December 29, 1992: Trial court conviction and imposition of penalties
– October 15, 1996: Court of Appeals affirms conviction
– September 18, 2000: Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) under the 1987 Philippine Constitution
Factual Background
Petitioner purchased jewelry worth ₱300,000.00 on August 25, 1990, and ₱241,668.00 on August 26, 1990, issuing two checks payable to “cash.” Both checks were dishonored due to “Account Closed.” Despite demands, petitioner neither paid nor made arrangements for payment.
Procedural History
Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Cebu City convicted petitioner of two counts of violating B.P. Blg. 22, sentencing her to one year’s imprisonment and a ₱200,000.00 fine per count, ordering restitution of ₱541,668.00 with interest, moral damages of ₱50,000.00, attorney’s fees of ₱10,000.00, and costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto.
Issue on Appeal
Whether petitioner’s issuance of dishonored checks without sufficient funds, even if given as security to a third party, constituted violation of B.P. Blg. 22, and whether the penalty and civil awards were proper.
Elements of the Offense
- Issuance of a check for value;
- Knowledge of insufficient funds at time of issuance;
- Dishonor of the check for insufficiency.
Petitioner did not dispute issuance or dishonor; she challenged only her knowledge of insufficiency.
Presumption of Knowledge
Under Section 2 of B.P. 22, when issuance and dishonor are established, knowledge of insufficiency is presumed (presumptio juris tantum) unless the drawer pays or makes full arrangements within five banking days of notice. Petitioner offered no evidence rebutting this presumption.
Nature and Purpose of the Law
B.P. Blg. 22 is a malum prohibitum offense aimed at protecting the banking system. Criminal intent beyond issuance of a worthless check is immaterial. The law’s deterrent function renders irrelevant the payee’s identity or the underlying transaction.
Penalty and Modification
The law prescribes imprisonment (30 days to 1 year), a fine of not less than the check amount and up to double (capped at ₱200,000.00), or both. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law’s rehabilitative philosophy (as in Vaca v. Court of Appeals), the Court deleted imprisonment and retained fines of ₱200,000.00 per count,
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 130038)
Facts
- On August 25, 1990, petitioner Rosa Lim visited the store of Maria Antonia Seguan and purchased Singaporean necklaces, bracelets, and rings valued at ₱300,000.00, issuing Metrobank Check No. CLN-094244391 dated August 25, 1990, payable to “cash.”
- On August 26, 1990, petitioner again went to Seguan’s store, bought jewelry worth ₱241,668.00, and issued Metrobank Check No. CLN-094244392 dated August 26, 1990, payable to “cash,” delivered via Aurelia Nadera.
- Seguan deposited both checks; they were returned dishonored for reason “Account Closed.” Petitioner’s bank account had been closed.
- Upon demand, petitioner promised payment but failed to remit either amount.
Procedural History
- June 5, 1991: Assistant City Prosecutor filed two informations (Criminal Case Nos. 22127 and 22128) charging petitioner with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
- Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment.
- December 29, 1992: The Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, Branch 23, convicted petitioner on both counts, sentencing her to one year’s imprisonment and a fine of ₱200,000.00 for each count, and ordering payment of ₱541,668.00 to Seguan with interest, moral damages of ₱50,000.00, attorney’s fees of ₱10,000.00, and costs.
- October 15, 1996: The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC decision in toto.
- Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review.
Issue
- Whether petitioner, at the time she issued the two checks, had knowledge of insufficient funds or credit in her bank account, thereby fulfilling the second element of a B.P. Blg. 22 violation.
Petitioner’s Contentions
- Petitioner claimed no direct transaction with Seguan and asserted that she delivered the checks to Aurel