Case Summary (G.R. No. 191404)
Procedural History
After multiple attempts to collect on the dishonored checks, Tarcelo filed seven informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) against Mitra and Cabrera in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Batangas City. The Municipal Trial Court found them guilty, leading to an appeal to the Regional Trial Court, which affirmed the trial court's decision. Following Cabrera's death, Mitra alone pursued a petition for review, arguing that she was not liable for the dishonored checks.
Legal Issues Presented
Mitra's petition raises two primary issues:
- Whether statutory elements of a BP 22 violation must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt against the corporation before liability attaches to the signatories of the checks.
- Whether there was proper service of notice of dishonor to both Mitra and Cabrera, which is an essential element of the offense.
Decision on Legal Elements of BP 22
The Court clarified that a check is a negotiable instrument and that BP 22 aims to deter the issuance of unfunded checks, thus recognizing that the mere act of issuing such a check is deemed a public offense. The law imposes severe penalties for violations, including imprisonment and fines, emphasizing the need for accountability in financial transactions to maintain public order.
Liability of Signatories
In addressing whether liability must first attach to the corporation for the signatories to be held responsible, the Court highlighted the language of Section 1 of BP 22, which expressly states that the individuals who sign checks on behalf of a corporation can be held liable regardless of the corporation's culpability. This ruling is consistent with previous jurisprudence, which maintains that officers of a corporation are directly liable for the checks they sign.
Knowledge of Insufficient Funds
The Court explained that in order for liability to be established under BP 22, it must be shown that the signatory had knowledge of the insufficient funds at the time of the check's issuance. The law creates a presumption of such knowledge after the check is dishonored unless the signatory can demonstrate otherwise within five banking days of receiving notice of dishonor.
Service of Notice of Dishonor
Mitra argued that there was no proper service of notice of dishonor, which she contended was critical to the case's outcome. The Court found that this issue pertained to factual determinations made by the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 191404)
Case Overview
- This case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Eumelia R. Mitra against the People of the Philippines and Felicisimo S. Tarcelo.
- The petition challenges the Decision dated July 31, 2009, and the Resolution dated February 11, 2010, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31740.
- The CA's decisions affirmed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) August 22, 2007 Decision, which in turn affirmed the Municipal Trial Court in Cities' (MTCC) May 21, 2007 Decision.
Parties Involved
- Petitioner: Eumelia R. Mitra, Treasurer of Lucky Nine Credit Corporation (LNCC).
- Respondents: People of the Philippines and Felicisimo S. Tarcelo, a private investor in LNCC.
Factual Background
- Mitra and the late Florencio L. Cabrera, Jr. were officers of LNCC, a corporation engaged in money lending.
- Between 1996 and 1999, Tarcelo invested substantial amounts in LNCC, receiving checks as returns on his investments.
- The checks issued to Tarcelo were later dishonored due to the "account closed" status of LNCC’s bank account.
Legal Proceedings
- Tarcelo filed seven informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), totaling P925,000.00, against Mitra and Cabrera in 2002 after failing to receive payment.
- The MTCC found both guilty, ordering fines and civil liability to Tarcelo.
- Mitra and Cabrera appealed to the RTC, arg
- ...continue reading