Case Summary (G.R. No. 190834)
Factual Background
Ariel T. Lim, the petitioner, issued two checks (Nos. 0013813 and 0013814), each in the amount of PHP 100,000.00, dated June 30, 1998, and July 15, 1998, payable to "CASH". These checks were intended as campaign donations to Mr. Willie Castor in the 1998 elections. Castor used these checks to pay for printing materials but later ordered petitioner to issue a "Stop Payment" order after the materials were delivered late. The bank dishonored the checks due to this stop payment instruction, which amounted to insufficient funds if not for the stop payment order. Magna B. Badiee, the private complainant, sent demand letters to petitioner, who subsequently issued a replacement check for PHP 200,000.00 dated September 8, 1998, which was successfully cashed by the complainant.
Procedural History
Despite the replacement payment, two separate criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 were filed against petitioner on March 19, 1999, before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. The MeTC found petitioner guilty of issuing worthless checks. The petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which modified some aspects of the decision but affirmed the conviction of one count of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 and imposed a fine. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC ruling on June 30, 2009. Petitioner sought review before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
The petition raises whether the petitioner should be acquitted on the ground that he fully paid the amount of the dishonored checks before the filing of the criminal informations, thus negating the essential element of the crime under B.P. Blg. 22. The petitioner relies on the precedent set in Griffith v. Court of Appeals and similar jurisprudence.
Applicable Law and Elements of the Crime
B.P. Blg. 22 penalizes the issuance of a check without sufficient funds or credit with the bank for payment upon presentment. The elements of the offense are (1) issuance of a check to apply on account or for value; (2) knowledge by the issuer at the time of issuance that there are insufficient funds or credit in the bank; and (3) dishonor of the check upon presentation for payment due to insufficient funds or credit, or it would have been dishonored if not for a stop payment order.
Under B.P. Blg. 22, upon notice of dishonor, the drawer has five banking days to pay or make arrangements for full payment; failure to do so raises a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds, which is an essential element of the crime. Payment within the five-day period negates this presumption and constitutes a full defense.
Analysis of Precedents and Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court revisited the case of Griffith v. Court of Appeals, where the accused was acquitted because payment of the bounced checks was made more than a year before the filing of the information. The Court explained that while payment after the five-day period does not generally extinguish criminal liability, extraordinary circumstances exist where payment prior to the filing of the complaint in court can justify acquittal in the interest of justice and equity.
In the present case, petitioner voluntarily paid the amount of the dishonored checks six months before the filing of the criminal case, making the imposition of criminal penalties unjust and inconsistent with the spirit of the law. The Court emphasized that penal laws should not be applied mechanically but rather in accordance with their purpose, which is to protect banking stability and credibility. When the amount due has already been paid before prosecution, the rationale for criminal liability disappears.
The Court distinguished this case from estafa cases under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, where
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 190834)
Case Background and Procedural History
- Petitioner Ariel T. Lim was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila for violation of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22, involving the issuance of dishonored checks.
- Petitioner issued two checks (Nos. 0013813 and 0013814, each for ₱100,000.00) dated June 30, 1998, and July 15, 1998, intended as campaign donations to Mr. Willie Castor.
- Castor ordered the delivery of printing materials and used these checks as payment. Due to late delivery, Castor instructed petitioner to stop payment, resulting in dishonor of checks on ground of "payment stopped."
- Private complainant Magna B. Badiee sent demand letters and later filed complaints. After more than a month from demand and upon receiving a subpoena, petitioner issued a replacement check dated September 8, 1998, for ₱200,000.00, which was successfully encashed.
- Despite payment, two Informations were filed against petitioner on March 19, 1999, charging him with violation of B.P. Blg. 22 for issuing checks with insufficient funds and stopping their payment without valid reason.
- MeTC convicted petitioner, which was partially affirmed and modified by the RTC; one case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, while the other upheld conviction with imposed fine and potential subsidiary imprisonment.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. Petitioner then filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Facts Relating to the Issuance and Dishonor of Checks
- The checks were drawn against insufficient funds (DAIF), as admitted by a bank officer during trial.
- The "stop payment" orders were issued following Castor’s instructions after delayed delivery of campaign materials.
- Demand for payment was made by Magna B. Badiee through two letters before filing the complaint.
- Petitioner made payment of the bounced checks via a replacement check prior to the filing of Informations.
- The replacement check was encashed by the complainant, satisfying the amount due.
Applicable Law: Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. Blg. 22)
- The offense consists of:
- Making, drawing, or issuing a check to apply on account or for value.
- Knowledge at time of issuance that there are insufficient funds or