LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RAMON P.

JACINTO

G.R. No. 154622, 3 August, 2010, THIRD DIVISION, (Villarama, Jr. J.)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

The mere act of issuing a worthless check, even if merely as an

accommodation is covered by BP 22

FACTS

The First Women’s Credit Corporation (FWCC) secured a loan from petitioner

bank amounting to 400 Million Pesos, as evidenced by the Credit Line Agreement.

Respondent issued 9 postdated checks to petitioner bank as fulfillment of payment.

However, petitioner and respondent executed a Restructuring Agreement where the

loan obligation contracted was modified. Upon failing to fulfill the conditions of the

Restructuring Agreement, petitioner bank used the checks for payment, however it was

dishonored. Respondent argues that he cannot be liable for BP 22 since the loan

obligation from the first agreement was extinguished by payment and novation by virtue

of the Restructuring Agreement.

ISSUE

WON the liability of respondent from BP 22 is extinguished by virtue of novation?

RULING

NO. The agreement surrounding the issuance of the check is irrelevant to the

prosecution under BP 22. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is what the special

law punishes. There is also nothing in the Agreement that extinguishes the liability of
respondent. Even if it was subsequently declared that novation took place, respondent

is not exempt from the prosecution under BP 22 for the dishonored checks.
 EDGARDO MEDALLA v. RESURRECCION D. LAXA

G.R. No. 193362, 18 January, 2012, SECOND DIVISION, (Reyes, J.)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and

issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for

payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The

Thrust of the law is to prohibit, under the pain of penal sanctions, the making of

worthless checks and putting them into circulation

FACTS

Petitioner issued to respondent a check as payment for the loan the former

obtained from the latter. The check was dishonored and upon demand of respondent for

payment, petitioner failed to pay his obligation. Before the court, and charged with BP

22, petitioner argues that he cannot be prosecuted for BP 22 as he and respondent

entered in a novation agreement that extinguished his remaining obligation to

respondent.

ISSUE

WON the novation agreement extinguished the liability of petitioner from violating

BP 22

RULING

NO. BP 22 punishes the act making and issuing a worthless check or a check

that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. The special law was not
designated to coerce the debtor to pay his obligations, but to punish the mere act of

issuing a rubber check.

 MARIA ROSARIO P. CAMPOS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES et al.

G.R. No. 187401, September 17, 2014, THIRD DIVISION, (Reyes, J.)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

Mere representation of registry return receipt that cover registered mail

was no sufficient to establish that written notices of dishonor had been sent to or

served on issuers of checks. The authentication by affidavit of the mailers was

necessary in order for service by registered mail to be regarded as clear proof of

the giving of notices of dishonor and to predicate the existence of the second

element of the offense

FACTS

Campos obtained a loan from FWCC which was payable on installment terms.

Petitioner Campos issued several checks to respondent for said obligation. However the

checks were dishonored and she failed to make the payments as demanded by

respondent. Before the court, she argues that the element of knowledge that at the time

of issuance, that she had no sufficient funds was never proven since he did not receive

a notice of dishonor. She also invokes good faith as she allegedly made arrangements

with respondent for the payment of her obligations after the checks were dishonored.

ISSUE

WON petitioner is guilty of BP 22?

RULING
 YES. In order to be liable for BP 22, three elements must concur: (1) the making,

drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account for value; (2) the knowledge of

the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of the issue, he does not have sufficient

funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its

presentment; (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. In the case of proving the

second element, Section 2 of BP 22 provides for the presumption of knowledge of

insufficiency of funds.

In the case at bar, the Court affirmed that Campos received the notice of

dishonor. Nonetheless, the argument of petitioner that she did not receive the notice of

dishonor was untenable, based on circumstantial evidence. Her defense that she

exerted efforts to reach an agreement with respondent after the check was dishonored

is considered a confirmation that she indeed received the required notice of dishonor

from FWCC. Thus, the second element is proven by her defense. Hence, she is guilty of

having committed the violation of BP 22.

 ARIEL T. LIM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

G.R. No. 190834, 26 November, 2014, THIRD DIVISION, (Peralta, J.)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

Although the payment of the value of the bounced check, if made beyond

the 5-day period as provided in Section 2 of BP 22, would normally extinguish

criminal liability, the cited case, and the present case show that the courts admits

the existence of extraordinary cases where, even if all the elements of the offense

are present, the conviction of the accused would prove to be abhorrent to

society’s sense of justice

FACTS

Petitioner issued the Bank of Commerce a check as his campaign donation for

one Mr. Willie Castro in the latter’s candidacy in the election. The said check was used

for the payment of printing materials however, since the said materials were delivered

late, Mr. Castro ordered petitioner to issue a Stop Payment Order of the two checks,

wherein the said checks were dishonored. Upon discovering that the checks were

drawn against insufficient funds a letter of demand and a subpoena was delivered to

petitioner. Upon receipt of the letter and subpoena, petitioner issued a replacement

check. Six months after the petitioner had paid the amount of the bounced check, two

information was filed against him for violation of BP 22. Petitioner argues that based on

jurisprudence that the case against him should be dismissed on the ground that he has

fully paid the amount of the dishonored checks even before the information was filed
ISSUE

WON petitioner’s defense was meritorious?

RULING

YES. Citing Griffith v. Court of Appeals, the case against the petitioner should be

dismissed. Petitioner had paid the amount of the dishonored checks before the filing of

information in court. The liberality applied in the cited case must also be applied in the

present case. Although the payment of the value of the bounced check, if made beyond

the 5-day period as provided in Section 2 of BP 22, would normally extinguish criminal

liability, the cited case, and the present case show that the courts admits the existence

of extraordinary cases where, even if all the elements of the offense are present, the

conviction of the accused would prove to be abhorrent to society’s sense of justice.