Case Summary (G.R. No. 204045)
Key Dates and Procedural Timeline
Checks issued: June 30, 1998 (Check No. 0013813) and July 15, 1998 (Check No. 0013814).
Demand letters sent by private complainant: May 20, 1998 and July 23, 1998.
Replacement check issued by petitioner and encashed by complainant: September 8, 1998 (P200,000.00).
Informations filed: March 19, 1999.
MeTC conviction: Decision promulgated September 12, 2006.
RTC decision on appeal: July 20, 2007 (modified lower court decision for lack of jurisdiction as to one count; affirmed conviction for the other).
CA decision: June 30, 2009 (affirming RTC judgment).
Supreme Court decision reviewed here: rendered November 26, 2014 (received December 11, 2014).
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Primary statute: Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. Blg. 22) — the Anti-Bouncing Check Law — and its recognized elements and procedural rules.
Constitutional framework applicable: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date post-1990).
Statement of Facts
Petitioner issued two personal checks, each for P100,000.00, payable to “CASH,” as campaign contributions to Willie Castor, who arranged printing materials and used the checks for payment. Because the printing materials were allegedly delivered late, Castor instructed petitioner to issue a “Stop Payment” order. The checks were dishonored by the bank for the reason “PAYMENT STOPPED” and were recorded as drawn against insufficient funds (DAIF) by the bank officer in testimony. Magna B. Badiee sent demand letters to petitioner; after more than one month from receipt of those letters and shortly after receiving a subpoena from the prosecutor’s office, petitioner issued a replacement check for P200,000.00 on September 8, 1998, which Badiee successfully cashed. Despite this, two Informations were filed against petitioner on March 19, 1999 for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
Procedural History and Lower Courts’ Findings
The MeTC found petitioner guilty of two counts of violating B.P. Blg. 22. On appeal, the RTC vacated the MeTC’s decision as to one information for lack of jurisdiction (where essential ingredients occurred in Quezon City) but affirmed conviction for the other count, imposing a fine of P100,000.00 plus costs and noting no civil liability because the check had been paid. The CA affirmed the RTC’s judgment in toto. Petitioner sought certiorari review in the Supreme Court.
Legal Issue Presented
Whether petitioner’s payment of the value of the dishonored checks (by issuance and delivery of a replacement check) prior to the filing of the Informations extinguished criminal liability under B.P. Blg. 22 and therefore warranted acquittal.
Statutory Elements of B.P. Blg. 22 and the Prima Facie Presumption
The Court reiterated the elements of B.P. Blg. 22: (1) the accused makes, draws or issues a check to apply to account or for value; (2) the accused knows at the time of issuance that there are insufficient funds or credit in the drawee bank for full payment upon presentment; and (3) the check is dishonored for insufficient funds or would have been so dishonored but for a stop-payment ordered by the drawer without valid reason. To facilitate proof of element (2), law and jurisprudence recognize a prima facie presumption of knowledge where the drawer is notified of dishonor and fails, within five banking days thereafter, to pay the amount in full or make arrangements for payment. Payment within the five-day period rebuts the presumption and constitutes a complete defense. Ordinarily, payment beyond that five-day period does not extinguish criminal liability.
Jurisprudential Exception: Griffith and Tan — Payment Prior to Filing of Information
The Court discussed established precedents (Griffith v. Court of Appeals and Tan v. Philippine Commercial International Bank) that carved out an equitable exception. In Griffith the Court acquitted where the creditor had already collected more than sufficient amounts to cover the value of the checks two years before the filing of the Information; the Court emphasized that penal laws must not be applied mechanically and that where the purpose of the penal provision (protection of banking system integrity) is satisfied through restitution before prosecution, continued criminal prosecution may be unjust. In Tan the Court similarly applied Griffith to acquit where the creditor had effectively satisfied the dishonored checks before formal demand/transmittal, resulting in the same conclusion that criminal liability was obliterated despite payment occurring beyond the five-day period.
Court’s Analysis Applying Precedent to the Present Case
The Supreme Court disagreed with the CA’s refusal to apply Griffith on the ground that the present checks were personal rather than corporate. The Court found analogous confusion or mistake in the present case: petitioner issued checks as a campaign contribution and complied with Castor’s instruction to stop payment after Castor told him materials were not delivered. This reliance on Castor’s instruction constituted a plausible mistake. Criticism of petitioner for paying only after rec
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 204045)
Court and Citation
- Supreme Court of the Philippines, Third Division; G.R. No. 190834.
- Reported at 748 Phil. 649.
- Decision promulgated November 26, 2014; original received by the Office December 11, 2014 at 11:40 a.m.
- Opinion text introduced with "PERALTA, J.:" as the reporting justice; final disposition lists Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Villarama, Jr., Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., as concurring.
Parties
- Petitioner: Ariel T. Lim.
- Respondent: People of the Philippines.
- Private complainant: Magna B. Badiee.
- Third party involved in facts: Mr. Willie Castor (Castor).
- Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) participated and rendered a recommendation.
Factual Background
- Petitioner issued two Bank of Commerce checks payable to "CASH": Check No. 0013813 dated June 30, 1998, and Check No. 0013814 dated July 15, 1998; each check was in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00).
- Petitioner gave the checks to Mr. Willie Castor as a campaign donation for Castor's 1998 election candidacy.
- Castor ordered delivery of printing materials and used petitioner’s checks to pay for the same.
- Castor claimed the printing materials were delivered too late and instructed petitioner to issue a "Stop Payment" order on the two checks.
- The bank dishonored the checks because of the "Stop Payment" order; when the bank officer testified, he admitted the checks were drawn against insufficient funds (DAIF).
- Private complainant Magna B. Badiee sent two demand letters to petitioner dated "My 20, 1998" and July 23, 1998.
- More than one month after the demand letters and after receiving a subpoena from the Office of the Prosecutor, petitioner issued a replacement check dated September 8, 1998 in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00); Magna B. Badiee successfully encashed that replacement check.
- On March 19, 1999—six (6) months after petitioner had paid the amount of the bounced checks—two Informations were filed against petitioner before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (MeTC).
Criminal Informations (as alleged in the Records)
- Two separate Informations were filed charging petitioner with violation of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22 for each check. Each Information alleged:
- The accused made, drew and issued the respective Bank of Commerce check payable to Magna B. Badiee (to apply on account or for value) in the amount of P100,000.00;
- The accused knew at the time of issue he did not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank for full payment upon presentment;
- The check, when presented for payment within ninety (90) days, was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason "PAYMENT STOPPED," and would have been dishonored for insufficiency of funds had not the accused ordered the bank to stop payment;
- The accused, despite receipt of notice of dishonor, failed to pay or make arrangements for payment in full within five (5) banking days after receiving said notice.
- Each Information closed with "CONTRARY TO LAW."
MeTC Decision
- On September 12, 2006 the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila promulgated a Decision finding petitioner guilty of two (2) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
RTC Proceedings and Decision
- Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.
- On July 20, 2007, the RTC issued a Decision that:
- Modified the lower court decision with respect to Criminal Case No. 327138 (07-249931) due to lack of jurisdiction (the RTC held the essential ingredients of the crime in that case happened in Quezon City), ordered the lower court's decision as to that case vacated and set aside for lack of jurisdiction;
- Affirmed the lower court's findings of guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 with respect to the remaining criminal case (identified in the RTC decision as criminal case no. 07-24992) and ordered petitioner to pay a fine of P100,000.00 plus costs;
- Affirmed the MeTC's finding of no civil liability on the ground that the check was paid;
- Provided subsidiary imprisonment of not more than six (6) months in case of failure to pay fine.
Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution
- Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA).
- On June 30, 2009, the CA promulgated a Decision affirming the RTC judgment in toto.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration with the CA was denied per Resolution dated January 4, 2010.
- The CA distinguished the present case from Griffith v. Court of Appeals on the ground that the checks here were personal checks whereas the check in Griffith was a corporate check; the CA found Griffith inapplicable because of that difference.
Petition Before the Supreme Court and Main Issue Presented
- Petitioner sought review by certiorari to the Supreme Court, arguing that jurisprudence requires dismissal of the criminal case because he had fully paid the amount of the dishonored checks before the Informations were filed in court.
- Petitioner principally relied on Griffith v. Court of Appeals (428 Phil. 878 (2002)) to support his claim that payment prior to filing of the Informations should bar criminal conviction under B.P. Blg. 22.
Position of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
- The OSG recommended acquittal of petitioner and opined that Griffith is applicable to the present case.
Relevant Legal Principles and Precedents Cited by the Court
- Elements of violation of B.P. Blg.