Maria Christina E.

Gaviola LEGFORMS 3B

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 10, Manila

CA G.R. No. 32705

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff-Appellee

-versus-

LILIA MOLONG
Defendant-Appellant

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANT

MONTERO & MONTERO LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee
110 Zobel Street, Makati City

1
 SUBJECT INDEX

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

AND FACTS 3

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS/GROUNDS
FOR APPEAL 4

ARGUMENTS

1. The Honorable Court erred in ruling that

Prosecution established beyond a reasonable
Doubt all elements of the crime under B.P. 22 4

RELIEF 6

AUTHORITIES CITED
1. Statute

 B.P. 22, Anti-Bouncing Checks Act

2. Jurisprudence

 Lim vs. People [G.R. No. 130038, 18 September 2000]

 Lozano vs. Martinez [G.R. No. 63419, 18 December 1986]

2
 Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
Branch 10, Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff-Appellee,

-versus Civil Case No. 187560

For: Violation of B.P. 22

LILIA MOLONG
Defendant-Appellant,
x----------------------------------------------------------x

APPELLANT’S BRIEF
Accused-Appellant, LILIA MOLONG, by undersigned counsel and to this Honorable
Court, respectfully submits that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Accused Lilia Molong was charged with Violation of Batas Pambansa 22, otherwise
known as the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law;

2. The Information that was filed, read as follows:

“That on or about the 30th day of December, 2002 and for sometime subsequent
thereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, knowing at the time of issue of the check she/he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full
upon its presentment, with deliberate intent, with intent of gain and of causing damage, did
then and there issue, make or draw Allied Banking Corporation Check No. 660143451
dated 12-30-2000 in the amount of P5,500.00 payable to Manny T. Limtong which check
was issued in payment of an obligation of said accused, but when the said check was
presented with said bank, the same was dishonored for reason “ACCOUNT CLOSED”
and despite notice and demands made to redeem or make good said check, said accused
failed and refused, and up to the present time still fails and refuses to do so, to the damage
and prejudice of said Manny T. Limtong in the amount of P5,500.00 Philippine Currency.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”

3. On 30 August 2003, the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 22, Manila, rendered a
decision finding accused LILIA MOLONG guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of the
decision reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the accused Lilia Molong
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violations of Section 1 of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22 and is hereby sentenced to serve an imprisonment of ONE (1) YEAR

3
 and FOUR (4) MONTHS; to pay Private Complainant Manuel T. Limtong the sums of
Five Thousand Five Hundred (P5,500.00) Pesos, corresponding to the amount indicated in
Allied Banking Checks Nos. 660143451, issued on December 30, 2000 together with the
legal rate of interest from the time of the filing of the criminal charges in Court and pay the
costs.”

A certified copy of the Decision dated 30 August 2003 is attached to the original of
this Brief and photocopies thereof are attached to the other copies hereof as Annex “A”;

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Accused-Appellant was an agent of Limtong Press. Inc. (LPI), a manufacturer of

calendars. LPI would print sample calendars then give them to agents to present to customers.
The agents would get the purchase orders of customers and forward them to LPI. After printing
the calendars, LPI would ship the calendars directly to the customers. Thereafter, the agents
would come around to collect the payments.

2. Accused-Appellant, however, had a history of unremitted collections, which he duly

acknowledged in a confirmation receipt he co-signed with his wife. Hence, Accused-Appellant’s
customers were required to issue postdated checks before LPI would accept their purchase orders.

3. In early December 2000, Wong issued a postdated check totaling P5,500.00, all dated
30 December 2000 and drawn payable to the order of LPI. These checks, however, were issued
only to guarantee the 1985 calendar bookings of his customers and not as payment for any
obligation. In fact, the face value of the check tallied with the total amount of calendar orders of
his sole customer at the time namely, Friendships Supermarket, Inc.

4. However, even after these customers had already paid their respective orders, LPI did
not return the said checks to him.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

I. The Honorable Court erred in finding that all the elements of the offense had been
proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

I. The Prosecution was not able to

establish beyond reasonable doubt

4
 all the elements of the offense
under B.P. 22

As stated in Section 1 of B.P. 22, there are two (2) ways of violating B.P. Blg. 22: (1) by
making or drawing and issuing a check to apply on account or for value knowing at the time of
issue that the check is not sufficiently funded; and (2) by having sufficient funds in or credit with
the drawee bank at the time of issue but failing to keep sufficient funds therein or credit with said
bank to cover the full amount of the check when presented to the drawee bank within a period of
ninety (90) days.

In Lim vs. People [G.R. No. 130038, 18 September 2000], the Court enumerated the
elements of B.P. 22 under the first situation pertinent to this case as follows: (1) The making,
drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) The knowledge of the
maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and (3) The
subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or
dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to
stop payment.

Making, Drawing and Issuance of a Check for Account or For Value

The first element, in this case, does not exist because the checks were not issued to apply
for account or for value. The checks were, in fact, issued as guarantee and the obligations they
were supposed to guarantee were already paid.

Knowledge of Issuer that He Does Not Have Sufficient Funds

Since the complainant deposited the checks on 5 June 2001 or 157 days after the 30
December 2000, the maturity date, the presumption of knowledge of lack of funds under Section
2 of B.P. Blg. 22 should not apply to him. Surely, Accused-Appellant could not be expected to
keep his bank account active and funded beyond the ninety-day period.

Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 provides:

“Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. The making, drawing and
issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient
funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date
of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds
or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or
makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5)
banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.”

5
An essential element of the offense is "knowledge" on the part of the maker or drawer of the
check of the insufficiency of his funds in or credit with the bank to cover the check upon its
presentment. Since this involves a state of mind difficult to establish, the statute itself creates a
prima facie presumption of such knowledge where payment of the check "is refused by the
drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank when presented within ninety
(90) days from the date of the check." To mitigate the harshness of the law in its application, the
statute provides that such presumption shall not arise if within five (5) banking days from receipt
of the notice of dishonor, the maker or drawer makes arrangements for payment of the check by
the bank or pays the holder the amount of the check, as held in Lozano vs. Martinez [G.R. No.
63419, 18 December 1986].

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is humbly prayed of this Honorable Court that the
Decision dated 30 August 2003 of the lower court be REVERSED with costs against the
appellee.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Makati City, 11 September 2004.

MONTERO & MONTERO LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Accused-Appellant
110 Zobel Street, Makati City

By:

Maria Christina E. Gaviola

Copy Furnished:

Office of the Solicitor General

132 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village,
Makati City

6
Diaz, Dominguez, Alcantara Law Office
Public Attorney’s Office
No. 66 Starboard Street, La Hista, Makati City

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

Undersigned counsel informs this Honorable Court that this Memorandum of Appeal was
furnished and filed by registered mail due to lack of messengerial services.

VERIFICATION

I, LILIA MOLONG, a Filipino, of legal age, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the Accused-Appellant in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Appellant’s Brief; and
3. I have read the contents thereof and understood the same, and attest that the
allegations contained therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or
based on authentic records.

LILIA MOLONG

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __________, in the City of Makati, affiant
exhibiting her Community Tax Certificate No.____________________, issued
at______________ on _____________________.

Doc. No. ______;

Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of 2006.