G.R. No. 149995 - Palana vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 149995)

Facts of the Case

Petitioner Palana was charged with having issued a postdated check amounting to P590,000.00 drawn against Asian Savings Bank, Makati, payable to Dr. Alex B. Carlos, in or about September 1987. The check was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Despite receiving notice of dishonor, petitioner failed to settle the amount within five banking days. The case was initially archived in 1992 due to non-apprehension but was revived in 1995 after petitioner posted bail and pleaded not guilty.

Petitioner’s Defense and Trial Testimony

Petitioner alleged that the amount was an investment from the private complainant, who was purportedly his business partner in Palana’s General Merchandising. Petitioner claimed the check was not issued as payment for a loan but as a document to be shown to a textile supplier. He also contested the timing of the check issuance, stating that his account was opened only on December 1, 1987, making the alleged September 1987 issuance implausible. Petitioner further contended that the complainant was aware of the check’s lack of funding.

Trial Court Decision

The RTC found petitioner guilty as charged on September 23, 1997. The court rejected petitioner’s claim of investment and partnership, holding instead that the check was a guarantee for the loan extended by Alex B. Carlos. The court sentenced petitioner to six months imprisonment and ordered the payment of P590,000.00 plus legal interest.

Court of Appeals Affirmation

The Court of Appeals sustained the RTC's verdict and dismissal of petitioner’s appeal in 2001. It emphasized that the act of lending money does not constitute an investment justifying the issuance of a check without sufficient funds. The appellate court likewise upheld the RTC's finding that the check was issued as payment for the loan and was thus for valuable consideration.

Jurisdictional Issue

Petitioner argued the RTC lacked jurisdiction due to the implementation of Republic Act No. 7691, which expanded the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs). However, the Court ruled that jurisdiction is determined at the time the information is filed, not at arraignment. Since the information was filed in 1991, prior to the 1994 enactment of R.A. 7691, the RTC properly exercised jurisdiction under B.P. Blg. 129. The finer penalty range of B.P. Blg. 22 placed the offense outside the MeTC's limited jurisdiction.

Elements of the Offense and Proof

The Court underscored that the prosecution sufficiently established all elements of violating B.P. Blg. 22:

The petitioner issued a check to apply on account or for value;
He knew at issuance that there were insufficient funds; and
The check was dishonored upon presentation.

Petitioner’s admission of knowledge of insufficient funds and failure to pay upon demand satisfied these requirements.

Valuation of Consideration and Credibility of Witnesses

The courts gave due deference to the RTC’s assessment of witness credibility, finding no reason to overturn the factual determination that the check represented a loan, not an investment. The legal presumption that a check is issued for value applies absent evidence to the contrary. Since petitioner received money from the complainant, the check was issued for value.

Invalidity of Petitioner’s Defenses

Petitioner's argument that the check was merely intended to impress suppliers and thus not meant to be cashed was invalid. The Supreme Court held that under B.P. Blg. 22, the gravamen lies in the act of issuing a dishonored check, a malum prohibitum offense, where the offender’s intent or good faith is immaterial. The provision aims to preserve the public’s trust in checks as currency substitutes.

Variance in Date of Issuance

The discrepancy between the a

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 149995)

Background and Procedural History

Petitioner Isidro Pablito M. Palana was charged with violation of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law.
The charge stemmed from the issuance of a postdated check dated February 15, 1988, in the amount of P590,000.00 payable to Dr. Alex B. Carlos, which was dishonored for insufficient funds.
The Information was filed on August 19, 1991, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 63.
The case was initially archived due to petitioner’s non-apprehension despite an issued arrest warrant.
The warrant was recalled after petitioner posted bail in June 1995, and petitioner pleaded not guilty in July 1995.
The RTC rendered its decision in September 1997 convicting petitioner of violating B.P. Blg. 22, sentencing him to six months imprisonment and ordering indemnification of the complainant.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC decision in 2001.
Petitioner then filed the present petition before the Supreme Court for review.

Facts of the Case

Private complainant Alex B. Carlos testified that petitioner and his wife borrowed P590,000.00 from him in September 1987.
To secure the loan, petitioner issued a postdated check for the amount.
Upon presentation, the check was dishonored due to insufficient funds.
Despite demand, petitioner failed to pay or make arrangements for payment.
Petitioner claimed the amount represented an investment by complainant in a partnership venture, not a loan.
Petitioner contended the check was issued in February 1988 merely to be shown to a textile supplier and was known by complainant to be unfunded.
The partnership “Palana’s General Merchandising” was registered in petitioner’s name only on December 1, 1987.
Both the RTC and CA rejected petitioner’s theory of investment, finding the check was issued to secure a loan.

Issues Presented for Resolution

Whether petitioner was guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22.
Whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the case given the effectivity of R.A. No. 7691 expanding Metropolitan Trial Court jurisdiction before arraignment.

Jurisdiction of the Courts

Jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time of institution of the action, not at the time of arraignment.
The Information was filed on August 19, 1991; at this time, jurisdiction was governed by B.P. Blg. 129.
Under B.P. Blg. 1