CASE #7

Remigio Ong vs. People of the Philippines and Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 139006. November 27, 2000
FACTS:
Remigio Ong is a businessman who owns Master Metal Craft. One time, he retained the services of Marcial
de Jesus as adviser on technical and financial matters, and also as President of Erocool Industries (another
company owned by Ong). On December 17, 1992, Ong requested a loan from de Jesus for 130k to pay the
13th month pay of his employees. De Jesus obliged and produced a Producers Bank Check. To secure
repayment, Ong issued a postdated FEBTC check for the same amount. Producers Bank check was cleared
and debited to Ongs account. However, the FEBTC check bounced due to insufficient funds. De Jesus filed
a case against Ong. The Trial Court found Ong guilty of B.P. 22. The CA affirmed it. Hence this case.

ISSUE: W/N Ong is liable for violation of B.P. 22.

RULING:
YES. The prosecution clearly established the existence of a loan and subsequent encashment of Producers
Bank Check. It also established that the FEBTC check issued by petitioner was dishonored due to
insufficiency.
The gravamen of offense punished by B.P 22 is the making and issuing of worthless check. Its the mere
issuance of any kind of check, regardless of intent of parties. Petitioners arguments (1.) that the
encashment of the FEBTC check is not clearly established; (2.) No proof of receipt of loan obligation) are
immaterial; (3.) the check was issued without consideration.
In actions based upon a negotiable instrument, it is unnecessary to aver or prove consideration, for
consideration is imported and presumed from the fact that it is a negotiable instrument. The
presumption exists whether the words "value received" appear on the instrument or not.
B.P. 22 punishes the mere issuance. Prejudice or damage is not even a requisite for conviction. The intent
of the law is to curb proliferation of worthless checks and ensure stability and integrity of checks as means
of payment.
The photocopy of demand letter (despite no original copy) is accepted due to the fact that is has been
identified and shown in court when De Jesus testified regarding about it. Being an issue of credibility of a
witness, the trial court is in a better position to settle such issue. In this case, it judged that the witness,
de Jesus, is credible enough to accept his testimony on the demand letter. The court affirmed the ruling
but removed the sentence of imprisonment. Thus, Ong is liable only for 150k fine and 130k civil indemnity.