Topic: BP #22

Cepheus I. Quinones
2017-06209-MN-0
SPL JD 3-2

VICTOR ONGSON vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

GR 156169 | August 12, 2005 | Ynares-Santiago, J.

FACTS: On various occasions Samson Uy extended loans to Victor Ongson and as

payments for the loans, Ongson issued five post-dated checks. These checks
were subsequently dishonored upon their presentment and Ongson failed to pay
for the amounts of the checks. Eight separate information were filed against
Ongson for violation of BP 22. The trial court rendered a one-page decision and
found Ongson guilty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Ongson
but modified the penalty. It deleted the penalty of paying a fine and imposed the
penalty of imprisonment. The case was raised to the Supreme Court questioning
the validity of the ruling of the trial court and if the conviction was proper.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the ruling of the trial court violated the requirements of the
Constitution and the Rules of Court
2.Whether or not Ongson is guilty for violation of BP 22

RULING: 1. YES. Sec. 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, Sec. 1 of Rule 36 and Sec. 1,
Rule 120 of the Rules on Civil Procedure state that a decision, judgement or
final order shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which the
decision is based. The ruling of the trial court did not state the material facts
(the transaction that led to the issuance of the checks, respective amounts, date
and reason for dishonor) It also failed to discuss the elements of BP 22 and
other pertinent facts. The decision was only a one page decision. The decision
of the trial court is void and the Court would ordinarily remand the case
but the Court deem it proper to resolve the case on the merits to avoid
delay.

2. He is partly guilty for BP 22. The Court acquitted him on two counts of BP
22 but found him guilty for six counts of BP 22. The elements of BP 22 are: a.)
making, drawing and issuance of a check for value, b) knowledge that at the
time of issue he does not have sufficient funds, c) subsequent dishonor of the
check for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had
not the drawer, without valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. Ongson
was acquitted for the two counts of BP 22 because there were discrepancies as
to the date and the amount indicated in the check and the information. On one
of the acquitted case of BP 22 the date on the check October 17, 1992 and the
amount was P3,117.50. What was indicated in the information was that the date
is October 15, 1992 and the amount was P3,117.00. The second acquitted case
the date check was October 2, 1992 but the one in the information is September
28, 1992.
As for the six other cases, the Court found Ongson guilty. It is presumed
that the checks were issued for valuable consideration. The prosecution was
able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that there was valuable consideration.
The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of issuing a worthless
check. BP 22 provides for a prima facie presumption that the offender knew
that he had insufficient funds because knowledge is a state of mind and it is
difficult to establish it. There is a presumption when the offender fails to pay
the amount of the check within five banking days from the notice of dishonor.
The presumption is brought into existence only after it is proved that the issuer
had receive a notice of dishonor and he fails to pay for the amount after said
receipt of the notice of dishonor. If such notice of dishonor is not sent to the
maker or drawer or if there is no proof as to when the notice was received by
the drawer then there is no way of reckoning the crucial 5-day period. The
notice of dishonor must be in writing. In the case the counsel of Ongson
admitted the receipt of the demand letters sent via registered mail. Thus, the
receipt of Ongson of the notice of dishonor and failure to pay the amount of the
checks within five days from receipt of such notice of dishonor gave rise to the
prima facie presumption that he had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds
at the time of the issuance of the checks.