You are on page 1of 10

LIM v. PEOPLE (2000) NIERRAS v.

DACUYCUY (1990)
Petitioner: Rosa Lim || RTC CEBU Petitioner: Peter Nierras
Respondent: Judge Auxencio Dacuycuy (RTC
Facts: 2 COUNTS of BP 22 LEYTE) || City Fiscal Antonio Lopez (TACLOBAN)
ROSA LIM called Maria Antonia Seguan (the
complainant), and went to her store. She bought Facts: 9 COUNTS OF BP 22 (in MTC) // 9
various kinds of jewelry (Singaporean necklaces, COUNTS OF ESTAFA (in Dacuycuy’s sala//RTC
bracelets and rings) worth 300k PHP. LEYTE)
CHECK 1  She wrote out a check dated AUG 25, PETER NIERRAS is a customer of SHELL (Pilipinas
1990, payable to “cash” for 300k and gave it to Shell Petroleum Corp). He purchased oil products
SEGUAN (no specification).
Bought jewelry the next day again. CHECK  Upon DELIVERY of the products, he
CHECK 2  Dated AUG 26 1990, payable to issued 9 CHECKS for their payment
“cash” for 241,668 PHP, sent the check to SEGUAN DISHONOR  CHECKS presented to PNB at
through a certain AURELIA NADERA* Naval, Leyte  DISHONORED, due to account
DISHONOR  SEGUAN deposited the 2 checks closed.
with her bank, returned w/ notice of dishonor. DEMAND  SHELL demanded that he deposit
LIM’s account in the bank from which the checks funds for the checks or pay for the products but he
were drawn was CLOSED. failed and refused
DEMAND  SEGUAN demanded and LIM
promised to pay, but she never did. FILED MOTION 2 QUASH in RTC LEYTE: On the
ground of double jeopardy, because the said
CONVICTED, 1YEAR imprisonment each (2 offenses of ESTAFA were already included in the
YEARS total); FINED 200k per info (400k BP 22 cases  DENIED  SC
total)  APPEAL TO CA  DISMISSED  SC
ARGUMENT: DOUBLE JEOPARDY because estafa
ARGUMENT: She never knew SEGUAN or had a & BP 22 are the same; namely that in ART 315
“transaction”; rather she issued the 2 checks to (2d) it says:
AURELIA NADERA* not SEGUAN, for a “security “(1) the postdating or the time the check was
arrangement” or ”guarantee” that she would issued
return the jewelry received if she was unable to (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check
sell them. (3) damage to the payee thereof”

RULING: DISMISSED RULING: DISMISSED


Never denied issuing the checks  1st and 3rd ESTAFA & BP22 are DISTINCT AND SEPARATE
elements of BP 22 are present  to escape liability OFFENSES.
she must have proven the 2nd element (knowledge DECEIT & DAMAGE are essential to ESTAFA while
of insufficiency) to be nonexistent which she failed in BP 22 they are not.
 gravamen of BP 22 is issuing a worthless check ** There is no double jeopardy because what DJ
 no need to prove it was in payment of an prevents is the IDENTITY of ELEMENTS in 2
obligation or that there was damage offenses. Thus you cannot be prosecuted for the
same OFFENSE but you may be prosecuted for the
DOCTRINE/HIGHLIGHT: SC DELETED PRISON same ACT.
SENTENCES ON GROUND THAT THE PETITIONERS
WERE IN GOOD FAITH WHEN THEY ISSUED SAID
CHECK; Also due to the underlying philosophy of
ISL to redeem valuable human material  prevent
unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty or of
economic usefulness.
WANG v. CA (2001) funds for 90 DAYS only, this is not what the law
Petitioner: Luis Wong || RTC CEBU intended  said 90 days is NOT an element of the
offense  checks are not stale (checks are
Facts: 3 COUNTS OF BP 22 generally good for 180 days), they were deposited
WONG is an AGENT of Limtong Press, Inc. (LPI), a only 157 days after issuance  he was duly
manufacturer of calendars. Customarily, LPI prints notified of dishonor  all elements present 
sample calendars which AGENTS present to application of AM No 12-2000 (fine OR
customers, and afterwards acquire purchase imprisonment only)  NEW PENALTY: No
orders and forward them to LPI. AGENTS were to imprisonment but double fine [6,750 – 12,820 –
collect payment after. WONG had a history of 11,000 respectively]
unremitted collections, which he duly
acknowledged. So his customers were required to PEOPLE v. GROSPE (1988)
issue postdated checks before LPI would accept Petitioner: PEOPLE & San Miguel Corp
their purchase orders. Respondent: Judge Nathaniel Grospe (RTC
CHECK  EARLY DEC 1985, WONG issued (6) Pampanga) and Manuel Parulan (accused)
postdated checks totaling 18,025 PHP, dated DEC
30, 1985 and drawn payable the to the order of Facts: 1 COUNT of BP 22 // 1 COUNT OF ESTAFA
LPI. These checks were initially to guarantee the  WHICH JUDGE DISMISSED; lack of jurisdiction
calendar orders of customers who failed to issue PARULAN is an authorized wholesale dealer of SMC
postdated checks. LPI refused to accept the checks in BULACAN.
as guarantees, and instead they agreed to apply CHECK  Issued 2 checks for beer purchases he
the checks to the payment of WONG’s unremitted made on various occasions in SMC Guiguinto,
collections for 1984 (18,077PHP). LPI waived the BULACAN, and handed to SMC Supervisor
52PHP difference. CORNELIO, assuring him of the sufficiency of funds
WARNING  Before the maturity of the checks, DISHONOR  deposited in BPI SAN FERNANDO
petitioner told LPI not to deposit the checks and PAMPANGA (because that’s where SMC maintained
promised to replace them within 30 DAYS, but he its accounts)  sent to PLANTERS BANK, STA
did not. MARIA BULACAN for clearance, was DISHONORED
DISHONOR  LPI deposited said checks with
RCBC, they were returned for “account closed.” JUDGE DISMISSED CASE FOR LACK OF
RCBC gave a return slip. JURISDICTION: Allegedly, the estafa or the
NOTICE  LPI through counsel notified WONG, issuance were NOT committed in Pampanga, but
but he failed to make arrangements for payment Bulacan  PEOPLE/SOLGEN APPEAL TO SC
within 5 banking days.
He was only charged for 3 checks though, worth RULING: RTC PAMPANGA HAD JURISDICTION.
5,500PHP, 3,375PHP and 6,410PHP respectively. Both crimes were transitory  CRIMPRO: Can file
 LPI insists the checks were used for in any court where essential elements occurred
WONG’s unremitted 1984 collections (an ESTAFA – DECEIT was in PAMPANGA (because
obligation, essentially) under NIL issuance + delivery must be to a person
 WONG insists he intended the checks to who took it as a holder; SMC Supervisor in
guarantee the 1985 purchases of his BULACAN did not do so but transferred it, the
customers. (not in an obligation daw) FINANCE OFFICER in SMC Pampanga became
holder in due course) but DAMAGE IN BULACAN
CONVICTED, 4 months/count + respective (where it was dishonored)
amounts of the checks (5.5k, 3.3k and 6.4k) BP 22 – ISSUANCE in Pampanga & DISHONOR in
 APPEALED CONVICTION, affirmed in toto  BULACAN. Knowledge of insufficiency of funds is
SC also a continuing eventuality, whether accused is
in one territory or another.
RULING: * No DOUBLE JEOPARDY in this case since the info
The checks may have initially been intended for was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It was not
guarantee but were in fact used to pay his decided on its merits, and thus the dismissal will
obligation  No need to determine the reason for not give rise to res judicata.
which the checks were issued, mala prohibita  JUDGE DIRECTED TO REASSUME
anyway  maker is NOT required to maintain JURISDICTION & TRY CASE.
LLAMADO v CA (1997) the said obligation to pay was novated by
Petitioner: Ricardo Llamado entering into new agreement (NOTICE #2)
4. Cannot be personally liable as it was a PAN
Facts: 1 COUNT OF BP 22 ASIA check, and he signed it in official
LLAMADO and co-accused JACINTO PASCUAL (at capacity
large) were Treasurer and President of the PAN
ASIA FINANCE CORP. RULING: DENIED
LEON GAW (complainant) delivered 180k to 1. Untenable; the check was given for actual
LLAMADO & PASCUAL. He was assured by AIDA valuable consideration. If the agreement
TAN, the secretary of PAN ASIA that the money was intended to be fulfilled only upon the
would be repaid on NOV 4, 1983 + 12% interest success of the investment, said written
+ share in corporate profits, if any. agreement and receipt would have been
CHECK  Upon delivery of said 180k, LLAMADO sufficient – there was no need for a check.
put the 180k in a deposit box. LLAMADO & 2. Dingle v. IAC cannot apply – The following
PASCUAL signed a PH Trust Company Check circumstances are not present
postdated NOV 4 1983 in the amount of 186,500 a. Prosecution witness established
in front of GAW. that he only dealt with accused’s
DISHONOR  ON NOV 4, complainant deposited CO-SIGNATORY
check in Equitable Banking Corp which was b. In same witness’ testimony,
DISHONORED, because payment stopped & ACCUSED’s name was never
insufficient funds. GAW’s account was debited the mentioned in connection of the
amount of the check by reason of its dishonor. transaction and the issuance of the
NOTICE 1  Returned to AIDA TAN to inform her, check
and she received said check, assuring him it will c. It was the CO-SIGNATORY that
be changed with cash. GAW returned to her once received notice of demand, not
more but this time she said she had nothing to do ACCUSED.
with the check & returned it to him. In this case, LLAMADO actually took the
NOTICE 2  Went to LLAMADO (NOV 11) to money & put it in deposit box. He also
inform him, LLAMDO offered in writing to pay 10% entered into a new agreement with GAW,
of the said amount on NOV 14/15 and the balance directly dealing with him.
to be paid over a period of 90 days  GAW 3. NOVATION THEORY – He was not paid, lol
AGREED. LLAMADO FAILED TO DO SO. 4. OFFICIAL CAPACITY – the law provides that
DEMAND  (year 1985) GAW demanded should the check be issued by a
payment but LLAMADO refused, offering to pay corporation, the person who did so on its
only 30% of his money, which GAW REFUSED. behalf is personally liable.
LLAMADO insisted that he did not know of the
transaction as he customarily signed them in
blanks for Pascual to be able to freely transact. He
did, however, agree to other parts of GAW’s
testimony (the NOTICES above)

CONVICTED, 1yr + 200k fine  APPEAL TO


CA, affirmed in toto  SC

ARGUMENTS:
1. Check was for contingent payment of an
investment which was unsuccessful and
thus not issued “to apply on account for
value”
2. He just signed but had no knowledge of
transaction (as in case of Dingle v. IAC)
3. Novation theory (as in the cases of Ong v.
CA & Guingona Jr. v. City Fiscal of Manila)
QUE v. PEOPLE (1987) CABRERA v. PEOPLE (2003)
Petitioner: Victor Que || RTC QUEZON CITY Petitioner: Evangeline Cabrera || RTC DAVAO

Facts: 2 COUNTS of BP22 Facts: 3 COUNTS OF BP 22


QUE is the Manager of Powerhouse Supply Inc. LUIS GO (Complainant) is the sole proprietor of
CHECK  He issued the said checks to Francis Hill DAVAO MINDANAO PIONEER HARDWARE & CO.
Supply (in Sta. Mesa Heights, QC sa may (DMPHCo.) He had a customer, BONI CO, and they
Gilmore to), to guarantee payments for purchases agreed that GO would sell lumber materials &
made by Powerhouse Supply. merchandise to CO on a 30-40DAY CREDIT BASIS.
DISHONOR  somewhere else, not mentioned in GO required CO to issue postdated checks for
case. Basta dishonored. payment.
CHECK  CO had no checking account of his own,
CONVICTED  appeal to CA, affirmed in toto but instead offered in payment, 3 checks drawn
 appeal to SC, gave minute resolution  this and issued by CABRERA, with whom CO had a
is now a MR for the CA & SC decision business arrangement with.

COMPLAINANT SIDE:
GO made his background checks on CABRERA and
ARGUMENTS: believing CO to be a good businessman, GO
1. SC’s denial of the petition by minute agreed. CO agreed that on the due date of the
resolution had no reason except for “lack of checks, he would pay the amount of the checks,
merit.” either in cash or by negotiating them or depositing
2. CA erred in not considering material facts, them in DMPHCO’s account.
such as that RTC QUEZON CITY had no DISHONOR  CO failed to pay and GO deposited
jurisdiction the checks in FEBTC on AUG 3, 1992. As of JUL
3. CA failed to consider an element of BP 22, 1999, CABRERA only had 700 PHP  On AUG 3,
which is the place of the issuance of the the account only had 100PHP  BANK CLOSED
check is clearly absent in the case ACCOUNT after applying 100PHP to bank charges
 Checks DISHONORED for account closed.
RULING: MR DENIED GO STILL CONTINUED TO TRANSACT WITH CO,
1. CONSTI: Minute resolutions are not THOUGH (dafuq).
“decisions” within the constitutional CHECK (not the one in this case. Checks ni
requirement. CABRERA yung isyu dito.)  But this time CO was
2. It does not matter whether the checks were drawing/issuing postdated checks from HIS
dishonored elsewhere, the place of personal account. GO accepted said checks hoping
issuance is the determinative factor and it he would be paid. DISHONOR  all checks were
is in QUEZON CITY. RTC had jurisdiction. dishonored.
3. That he meant to guarantee payment does NOTICE  GO notified CABRERA that her checks
not matter, because even if checks were were dishonored. She went to see GO and
issued for a guarantee or deposit the intent confirmed her business arrangement with CO. She
is not material as it is mala prohibita. * this asked GO to give CO more time to redeem the
was not part of his petition but SC took postdated checks with cash, which he failed.
cognizance anyway
PETITIONER’S SIDE:
 CO testified that he was buying and selling
merch from DMPH Co. Aside from their initial
agreement, GO apparently also agreed that CO
would pay for his purchases after the merchandise
was sold and CO would pay with the amount
collected from his customers. As it turns out, CO
has already paid 120,000PHP to GO, who did not
issue a receipt. GO did not return the 3 checks.
 CABRERA admitted she drew them, but insisted
that she did not receive any consideration  she
wrote them in blank, because she and CO agreed SVENDSEN v. PEOPLE (2008)
that the checks would not be enchased or Petitioner: James Svendsen || MeTC MANILA
deposited, as they were meant only to guarantee
payment  she was in GOOD FAITH when she Facts: 1 COUNT OF BP22
issued said checks  and while she SPOKE to GO, In OCT 1997 -- CRISTINA REYES extended a loan
she never received a notice of dishonor, or a to SVENDSEN for 200k at a 10%/month interest.
demand letter from GO or DMPH Co. She only SVENDSEN was able to partially pay his obligation,
knew the checks were dishonored when she he failed to settle the balance which reached 380k
received a subpoena pertaining to the same. with interest. REYES filed a collection suit which
was SETTLED and petitioner paid her 200k.
CONVICTED, FINED with amount of checks CHECK  SVENDSEN issued her an International
(in favor of gov’t, for some reason) and Exchange check postdated FEB 2, 1999 for 160k,
directed to pay civil indemnity for amount of co0signed by WILHELM BOLTON (at large)
checks to GO  APPEALED TO CA, CA affirmed DISHONOR  When presented for payment on
RTC, MR DENIED  SC FEB 9, 1999  DISHONORED for insufficiency of
funds (DAIF)
RULING: ACQUITTED NOTICE  REYES, through counsel, notified
There is no issue that the 1st and 3rd elements are petitioner by registered mail and demanded he
present in said case. It is the 2nd that is at issue, make it within 5 days from receipt. No such
because it only gives rise to a prima facie settlement was made. Case filed against
presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of SVENDSEN and BOLTON. BOLTON remained at
funds. HOWEVER, the prosecution must still large.
PROVE IT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. Since
knowledge is difficult to prove, the law has SEC 2 METC CONVICTED  APPEAL, RTC AFFIRMED
to EVIDENCE said knowledge, which is the notice  APPEAL, CA AFFIRMED  SC
of dishonor of said check  Prosecution must
PROVE that there was a notice of dishonor and that ARGUMENTS:
within 5 banking days accused failed to pay, or at 1. The obligation to pay interest is VOID, not
least failed to make arrangements to pay the being in writing and the 10% interest being
amount of the checks.  Drawer can STILL rebut unconscionable
this prima facie presumption of knowledge  It is 2. That CA erred in holding him civilly liable
NOT ENOUGH to prove that a notice of dishonor for 160k despite the invalidity of the
was SENT to drawer, it must have been RECEIVED interest stipulation
 LUIS GO’s testimony that he sent her demand 3. Due process was violated when he was
letters is insufficient  Since prosecution failed to convicted, but there was no proof of
prove receipt, the prima facie presumption of dishonor was received by him
knowledge CANNOT ARISE.  Petitioner however,
is still obliged to pay because a check is an RULING: ACQUITTED
evidence of a debt against drawer, and since it No issue that the 1st and 3rd requisites are proven,
passed on to a third person, it will be valid in his SVENDSEN did not deny that he had issued the
hands like any other check.  CABRERA TO PAY check and that it was dishonored.  Prosecution
209,175.45 PHP with 12% legal interest failed to prove notice of dishonor  The registry
receipt is insufficient as it only proves that the
notice of dishonor & demand letter were SENT, but
does not prove that both were received. 
RETURN RECEIPTS do not prove receipt, they have
to be authorized to be proof of receipt 
SVENDSEN IS STILL CIVILLY LIABLE THOUGH 
Petitioner to pay 160k, and the 10%/month
interest is unconscionable and voided by SC,
replaced with 12% per annum
MAGNO v. CA (1992) DISHONOR  The checks were deposited
Petitioner: Oriel Magno || RTC QUEZON CITY eventually but were dishonored and returned,
“account closed.”
Facts: 4 COUNTS OF BP 22
MAGNO was in the process of putting up a car CONVICTED  APPEAL TO CA, DENIED 
repair shop in APRIL 1983, but did not have Appealing RTC DECISION TO SC
enough equipment to actually be in business. He
lacked funds to purchase the necessary equipment RULING: ACQUITTED
as well. Thus, MAGNO, representing ULTRA 1. The “cash out” made by TENG was not used
SOURCES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, by petitioner, who was just paying rentals
approached CORAZON TENG (complainant) VP of for the equipment, not BUYING them. In
MANCOR INDUSTRIES, for the equipment of which that case the warranty deposit would have
MANCOR was a distributor. TENG referred MAGNO formed a part of the purchase price. But
to LS FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT CORP, advising since it never ended up as a sale and
its VP JOEY GOMEZ that MANCOR was willing and remained a lease, the warranty deposit
able to supply the pieces of equipment needed should NOT BE CHARGED against
(NOT EQUIPMENTS, PUTA), if LS FINANCE could petitioner. To charge him for refund of a
accommodate MAGNO and provide him with credit “warranty deposit” which he did not
facilities. withdraw as it was not his own account, it
The arrangement pushed through, but had a having remained with LS FINANCE, is to
condition that MAGNO had to put up a warranty make MAGNO pay an unjust dept
deposit equivalent to 30% of the total value of the 2. That MAGNO was unaware that the checks
equipment to be purchased  29,790PHP (yung he issued were turned over to TENG, whose
30%) operation was kept from MAGNO evokes
Since MAGNO could not come up with the amount, suspicion that the transaction is irregular
he requested GOMEZ to find a third party who and immoral. She specifically requested
would lend him the same amount of the warranty GOMEZ not to say she was the SOURCE of
deposit. UNKNOWN TO PETITIONER, TENG the “warrant deposit”.
ADVANCED THE DEPOSIT, ON THE CONDITION 3. There is no doubt that the 4 checks were
THAT IT WOULD BE PAID AS A SHORT TERM LOAN intended to collateralize an
AT A 3% INTEREST. accommodation, not to cover receipt of an
MAGNO and LS FINANCE entered into a leasing actual “account or credit for value” and
agreement, where LS would lease the equipment therefore petitioner should not be punished
and petitioner would pay rent with option to buy for mere issuance of the checks.
the same. The documents were completed and the 4. CA was a bit discriminative tbh. SC ruled
equipment delivered to MAGNO. that CA even expected MAGNO to prove he
CHECK 1  Upon delivery, MAGNO issued a was not guilty  but SC says he could not
postdated check and gave it to GOMEZ, who, have produced documents showing that
unknown to petitioner, gave the same to TENG. the warranty deposit was already taken
When the check matured, MAGNO requested back by TENG when she is an officer of
GOMEZ not to deposit the check as he was no MANCOR, which has interest in the
longer banking with PACIFIC BANK. transaction. And even if she did get back
CHECK  To replace the first check, MAGNO the value, she would STILL pursue
issued 6 postdated checks. The first 2 checks were collecting from MAGNO because the checks
cleared, while the 4 remaining were held were in her possession and they “bounced”.
momentarily by TENG upon request of MAGNO as 5. MAGNO never hid the fact that he did not
they were not covered with sufficient funds. have funds, and actually told GOMEZ of the
**.. He’s still blissfully unaware at this point..** same. The element of knowing of the
MAGNO could not pay LS FINANCE the rentals, and insufficiency of funds is inversely applied in
thus pulled out the equipment. It was only they he this case. It would have been different if
became aware that TENG was the one who this predicament was not communicated to
advanced the warranty deposit. MAGNO and his all parties MAGNO dealt with.
wife promised to pay TENG but were unable to,
PEOPLE v. NITAFAN (1992) TAN v MENDEZ JR (2002)
Petitioner: PEOPLE/SOLGEN Petitioner: Steve Tan & Marciano Tan
Respondent: Judge Nitafan (RTC MANILA) & KT Respondent: Fabian Mendez
LIM alias MARIANO LIM (accused) RTC IRIGA CITY

Facts: 1 COUNT OF BP 22 Facts: 1 COUNT OF BP 22


KT LIM was charged of BP 22 in 1985 for issuing STEVE & MARCIANO TAN are owners of MASTER
to FATIMA SASAKI a Philtrust check dated FEB 9 TOURS AND TRAVEL CORP and operators of
1985, for 143k which was subsequently PHILIPPINE LAWIN BUS CO. INC while FABIAN
dishonored and he failed to pay within 5 days after MENDEZ is the owner of 3 gasoline stations in
notice. IRIGA CITY, LIGAO CITY (Albay) and SIPOCOT,
JULY 1986  MOTION 2 QUASH: On the ground CAMSUR.
that the facts charged did not constitute a felony
as BP 22 was unconstitutional and that the check Brothers TAN opened a credit line for their buses’
was a memorandum check in the nature of a lubricants and fuel consumption with MENDEZ.
promissory note  Respondent Judge NITAFAN MENDEZ was also designated by Brothers TAN as
granted the petition & ordered to quash it  the booking and ticketing agent of PH LAWIN BUS
SOLGEN on petition for certiorari on behalf of CO in IRIGA CITY.
the Government
*IN DEC 1986, case of Lozano v. Martinez the Under this arrangement, drivers (employed by
constitutionality of BP 22 was upheld. In the said TANs) purchased fuel and various oil products for
case 7 others were included (kasama din ata to their buses on credit, through withdrawal slips
dun). Accordingly, the only issue is… W/N a issued by TAN Brothers, with periodic payments to
memorandum check issued postdated in partial MENDEZ through checks. MENDEZ remitted the
payment of a pre-existing obligation is within the proceeds of the ticket sales to petitioners also
coverage of BP 22* LIM cites US v. Isham, through the issuance of checks. Remittances from
contending that a memorandum check, while not Baao booking offices accompanied MENDEZ’s
different from an ordinary check, is given by remittances.
drawer to payee more in the nature of a
memorandum of indebtedness and is actually a CHECK  FEBTC Check dated JUN 4 1991 for
promissory note. 58,237.75PHP as payment for gas and oil products
bought from MAY 2 -15 1991.
RULING: JUDGE DIRECTED TO HEAR CASE. DISHONOR  Dishonored when presented for
1. Even if it were intended NOT to be DAIF.
presented, it is still the same as an ordinary NOTICE  MENDEZ sent a demand letter on JUN
check; and if passed on to a 3rd person, it 21 demanding that they make good the check or
would be valid in his hands like any other pay, to no avail. Case filed.
check.
2. It is still drawn on a bank and is entirely PROSECUTION: Witnesses (FABIAN & MULRY
different from a promissory note, which is MENDEZ) testified that the subject check and
but a mere promise to pay. If he wanted to other checks in the amount of 235,387.33PHP
avoid BP 22, he could have issued a were dishonored and that they sent a demand
promissory note instead. letter to brothers TAN, who asked them to wait a
3. A memorandum check falls under the NIL while. After the filing of this case, THE TANS tried
definition of a check, “a bill of exchange to settle the same, along with other cases pending
drawn on a bank payable on demand.” in other courts in IRIGA. They asked for time to
4. It must therefore fall within the ambit of BP settle since they were waiting for a tax credit
22, which merely provides that “[…] any certificate worth 517k to be issued by the Ministry
person who makes or draws and issues ANY of Finance, which they would use to settle the
CHECK knowing at the time of issue that he cases.
does not have sufficient funds in or credt DEFENSE: MARCIANO TAN testified that he cannot
with the drawee bank […]” BP 22 is meant be liable as the amount subject of the check was
to cover ALL CHECKS DRAWN AGAINST already offset (COMPENSATION) against the
BANKS. collection of the ticket sales from the booking
office. He showed that the return to MENDEZ of 5. Petitioners never alleged compensation in
the various unencashed checks worth 66,839PHP, the PI, or in trial. They did not take back
representing remittance of the ticket sales in the checks, if there had been actual
IRIGA and BAAO that were earlier sent by compensation, which is but ordinary action
MENDEZ. After the alleged offset, there remains a in the course of business. Weird daw kayo
balance of 226,785PHP. A memorandum was gago.
submitted in court to this effect. MARCIANO PENALTY: No more imprisonment but double
admitted, however, to have drawn the subject the value of the subject check. Merits deletion
check to pay MENDEZ but it was not covered by due to the absence of bad faith of TANs.
sufficient funds at the time of its issuance due to
uncollected receivables. Upon the court’s query, LAO v. CA (1997)
MARCIANO also admitted that he did not talk to Petitioner: Lina Lim Lao || RTC MANILA
MENDEZ and could not tell if MENDEZ agreed to
offset the checks with the remittances. Facts: 3 COUNTS OF BP22  1 acquit, 2
convicted
MENDEZ disputed the offsetting. He claimed that LIM was a junior officer of PREMIERE
the 4 unencashed checks could not have offset the INVESTMENT HOUSE in its BINONDO BRANCH.
amount of the dishonored checks, since their total She was authorized to sign checks for and in
obligation amounted to 906k PHP. AND even if behalf of the corp. She met FR PALIJO,
compensation did take place, it should be applied provincial treasurer of the Society of the Divine
to an earlier obligation of 235,387,33PHP. Lastly, Word through ROSEMARIE LACHENAL* a
there was no application of payment in said trader for Premiere. PALIJO was authorized to
memorandum dated JUN 10, 1991. invest donations to the society and had been
investing the same with Premier, a total of
CONVICTED  APPEAL, affirmed in toto  SC 514,484PHP.
CHECK  PALIJO was issued Traders Royal
RULING: Bank checks (3) in payment of interest,
1. All elements are present! (a) He drew the amounting to almost 330k.
check to pay for the purchases (b) he knew They were all issued in his favor and signed by
there were no sufficient funds to cover the LIM and TEODULO ASPREC (at large), the head
check because he had uncollected of operations. The transaction was further
receivables (c) the check was dishonored  evidenced by acknowledgement of postdated
aba uwian na kung ganun checks dated JUL 8 1983 and the cash
2. EVEN if there was a payment through disbursement voucher
compensation or other means, there is DISHONOR  PALIJO presented the checks
STILL a prosecution for BP 22. (dapat and they were dishonored for the reason DAIF.
dito palang tapos na pero HINDI EH) He immediately made demands on PREMIERE
3. Defense of compensation is unavailing to pay him. He first went to the BINONDO
because there was no application of Branch but was referred to the CUBAO main
payments – TAN did not specify in the branch, where he talked to the President,
memorandum that the dishonored check is CARINO. PALIJO was paid 5k for his efforts, but
being offset. Without such specification, no other payments followed. He wrote a formal
the payment should have been applied to letter of demand to PREMIERE, which,
the more onerous obligation, the 235.387k subsequently, was placed under receivership.
4. No compensation can take place as Case filed.
MENDEZ is not a debtor of TANs insofar as *in the case she was acquitted, the prosecution
the two checks representing collections failed to present evidence despite her being
from the BAAO ticket sales are concerned. arraigned.*
Those are not the ticket sales from In her defense, LIM consistently stated the
MENDEZ, who only acted as intermediary following:
in remitting the ticket sales. Moreover, 1. In the regular course of her duties as junior
those remittances from the BAAO sale were officer, she was required to co-sign the
the ones allegedly used in offsetting the checks drawn against the account of the
dishonored check. corp together with the other co-signer,
head of office, TEODULO ASPREC. Since 3. NO NOTICE OF DISHONOR, not from
her duties required her to be mostly in the PALIJO or from the DRAWEE bank. No
field and out of the office, she customarily prima facie presumption of knowledge can
signed the checks in blank. ASPREC was arise. Even if it was given to the main
the only one who filled them in, and he branch, it was not transmitted to the
ALONE decided to whom the checks would BINONDO branch. It was not even
ultimately be issued and delivered. personally handed to LIM. Responsibility
2. LIM had no knowledge of the actual funds under BP 22 is personal, thus personal
available in the corporate account, not knowledge of the notice of dishonor is
even as it was her duty to sign the checks. necessary.
Such responsibility, power and duty to
monitor and assess the balances against PEOPLE v. BAUTISTA (2001)
the checks issued and the funding of the Petitioner: Ruth Bautista || CAVITE CITY
checks belonged to the TREASURY
DEPARTMENT in the main office of CUBAO. Facts: 1 COUNT of BP 22
3. The checks were to guarantee payment of CHECK  Sometime in APR 1998, BAUTISTA
PALIO’s investments. In his transactions, issued to private respondent SUSAN ALONA a
he dealt with ROSEMARIE LACHENAL*, not Metrobank Check dated MAY 8 1998 for
LAO. He had never met nor dealt with LIM 1,500,000PHP, drawn on Metrobank Cavite
in any way before or during the issuance of branch. She was assured that the check would be
the delivery of the checks. fully funded on maturity date.
4. LIM was not involved in anyway with the DISHONOR  OCT 8, 1998, presented,
completion and subsequent delivery of the DISHONORED, DAIF.
check to PALIJO. ALONA filed a case with City Prosec of CAVITE. She
5. She had NO NOTICE OF DISHONOR. She alleged there that she made repeated demands on
was not notified personally whatsoever. BAUTISTA to make arrangements for the payment
of the check within 5 working days from receipt of
RULING: ACQUITTED dishonor, but BAUTISTA failed to do so.
1. Prima facie presumption was debunked. It BAUTISTA asserted that the presentment of the
only evidences knowledge, but actual check within 90 days was an essential element of
knowledge must be proven. LIM was often the offense of BP 22, and that since the check was
out, in charge of the marketing dept. of the presented for payment 166 days after its due date,
BINONDO branch, and she had no it was no longer punishable under BP 22.
knowledge of the transactions being
entered into when she signed checks, all in Prosec found probable cause, recommended
blank. She had no identity of the payee, or filing  approved  BAUTISTA filed petition
even the transaction that was the reason for review with Office of Regional State
for the checks, or even the amount. By Prosec Region IV  denied  MR with OSRP
reason of organizational structure of the IV  denied  petition for review in CA 
organization, she was not even expected or dismissed  SC
obliged to KNOW the insufficiency of funds.
2. DINGLE v. IAC applies: The following RULING: CA AFFIRMED.
circumstances are present 1. BAUTISTA is being charged for the first
a. Prosecution witness established paragraph of SEC 1 BP 22, not paragraph
that he only dealt with accused’s 2. The 1st paragraph pertains to an instance
CO-SIGNATORY where drawer issues check when he knows
b. In same witness’ testimony, at the time that he has not enough
ACCUSED’s name was never sufficient funds. The 2nd paragraph pertains
mentioned in connection of the to an instance where drawer has sufficient
transaction and the issuance of the funds at the time of issuance, but fails to
check keep sufficient funds/maintain credit within
c. It was the CO-SIGNATORY that 90 days from the date appearing on the
received notice of demand, not check.  IN BOTH INSTANCES, THE
ACCUSED.
OFFENSE IN CONSUMMATED FOR THE
DISHONOR OF THE CHECK.
2. The 90-day period is NOT an element of
violations of BP 22. SEC 2 of BP 22 clearly
states that a dishonored check presented
within the 90 period only creates a prima
facie presumption of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds, said KNOWLEDGE
being the essential element of the crime.
Knowledge of the insufficiency of funds is
the ULTIMATE fact, or the element that
must be proven, while the dishonor of the
check presented within 90 days is merely
the EVIDENTIARY fact of such knowledge.