TodayisSaturday,September26,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.160127November11,2008
RAFAELP.LUNARIA,petitioner
vs.
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondent.
DECISION
PUNO,C.J.:
ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRevisedRulesofCourt,toreverseand
set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA),1 and the Resolution which denied petitioner's
motion for reconsideration. The CA affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
ValenzuelaCity,Branch75,2findingpetitionerRafaelLunariaguiltyofone(1)countviolationofBatas
Pambansa(B.P.)Blg.22.
TheCase
Records3showthatsometimeinOctober1988,petitionerenteredintoapartnershipagreementwith
privatecomplainantNemesioArtaiz,intheconductofamoneylendingbusiness,withtheformeras
industrialpartnerandthelatterthefinancer.Petitioner,whowasthenacashierofFarEastBankand
Trust Company in Meycauayan, Bulacan, would offer loans to prospective borrowers which his
branchwasunabletoaccommodate.Atthestartofthebusiness,petitionerwouldfirstinformArtaizof
theamountoftheproposedloan,thenthelatterwouldissueacheckchargedagainsthisaccountin
the bank (proceeds of which will go to a borrower), while petitioner would in turn issue a check to
Artaizcorrespondingtotheamountlentplustheagreedshareofinterest.
The lending business progressed satisfactorily between the parties and sufficient trust was
establishedbetweenthepartiesthattheybothagreedtoissuepresignedcheckstoeachother,for
theirmutual convenience.The checksweresignedbuthadnopayee'sname,dateoramount,and
eachwasgiventheauthoritytofilltheseblanksbasedoneachother'sadvice.
The arrangement ended on November 1989, when Artaiz was no longer willing to continue the
partnership.4OneofthechecksissuedbypetitionertoArtaizwasdishonoredforinsufficientfunds.5
WhenArtaizwenttopetitionertoaskwhythelatter'scheckhadbounced,petitionertoldArtaizthathe
had been implicated in a murder case and therefore could not raise the money to fund the check.6
PetitionerrequestedArtaiznottodeposittheotherchecksthatwouldbecomedueashestillhada
case.7
Petitioner was charged with murder in December 1989 and detained until May 1990, when he was
released on bail. He was eventually acquitted in December 1990. According to Artaiz, he went to
petitioner in May 1990, after petitioner had been released on bail, and demanded payment for the
money owed Artaiz. Petitioner again requested more time to prepare the money and collect on the
loans.Artaizagreed.8InJune1990,petitionerallegedlywenttoArtaiz'sresidencewherebothhadan
accounting.ItwassupposedlyagreedthatpetitionerowedArtaizP844,000.00andpetitionerissueda

checkinthatamount,postdatedtoDecember1990.9
Whenthecheckbecamedueanddemandable,Artaizdepositedit.Thecheckwasdishonoredasthe
accounthadbeenclosed.Ademandletterwassubsequentlysenttopetitioner,informinghimofthe
dishonor of his check, with a demand that he pay the obligation.10 Artaiz also went to petitioner's
housetogetasettlement.AccordingtoArtaiz,petitionerproposedthathishouseandlotbegivenas
security.ButafterArtaiz'slawyerhadpreparedthedocument,petitionerrefusedtosign.Atthispoint,
Artaizfiledtheinstantcase.11
TheRTCfoundpetitionerguiltyaschargedandsentencedhimtosufferthepenaltyofimprisonment
ofone(1)year,andtopayArtaiztheamountofP844,000.00,andthecostofsuit.12
Onappeal,theCAfoundnoerrorandaffirmedthedecisionintoto.13
TheIssues
Inthepetitionbeforeus,petitionerallegesthattheCAgravelyerredin:
I.NotreversingtheRTCdecisionconvictingpetitionerforviolationofB.P.Bilang22
II.Notholdingthattheprosecutionfailedtoestablishtheelementsofthecrimeoftheviolation
ofB.P.Bilang22:
1. the prosecution failed to establish that the subject check was duly "made" or "drawn"
and"issued"bypetitioner
2. the subject check was received by the private complainant without giving any
considerationtherefore
3. the oral testimony of private complainant is full of serious inconsistencies and
contradictionsandshouldhavebeendisregardedbythetrialcourt
4. private complainant's testimony should have been stricken off the records for being
hearsayinnature
5. the prosecution dismally failed to overcome the presumption of innocence of the
accusedincriminalcases
6.toholdpetitionerliableforviolationofB.P.Blg.22inthiscasewouldresultinaterrible
injustice
III. In the alternative, in not applying in petitioner's favor the rule of preference in the
imposition of penalties in B.P. Blg. 22 cases, i.e., the [CA] erred gravely in not deleting the
penaltyofimprisonmentandimposinginlieuthereofafineuponpetitioner.
TheRuling
Weaffirmtheconvictionbutwithmodificationonthepenalty.
At the outset, the first and second grounds raised by petitioner are essentially factual in nature,
impugning the finding of guilt by both the CA and the RTC. Petitioner would have this court re
evaluate and reassess the facts, when it is beyond cavil that in an appeal by certiorari, the
jurisdictionofthisCourtisconfinedtoreviewsoferrorsoflawascribedtotheCA.ThisCourtisnota
trier of facts, and the findings of fact by the CA are conclusive, more so when it concurs with the
factualfindingsoftheRTC.Absentanyshowingthatsuchfindingsaredevoidofanysubstantiation
onrecord,thefindingofguiltisconclusiveonus.14
Moreover, we have gone over the records and find no error in the decision of the appellate court
holdingthattheelementsofthecrimehavebeenestablishedbytheprosecution,i.e.,(1)themaking,

drawing,andissuanceofanychecktoapplyforaccountorforvalue(2)theknowledgeofthemaker,
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 the check in full upon its presentment and (3) the subsequent
dishonorofthecheckbythedraweebankforinsufficiencyoffundsorcreditordishonorforthesame
reasonhadnotthedrawer,withoutanyvalidcause,orderedthebanktostoppayment.15
Petitioner makes much of the argument that the check was not "made" or "drawn" within the
contemplation of the law, nor was it for a consideration. The evidence on record belies these
assertions.AscorrectlyheldbytheCA:
Under the first element, [petitioner] wants Us to believe that he did not draw and issue the
check. Citing the Negotiable Instruments Law, he said the he could not have "drawn" and
"issued" the subject check because "it was not complete in form at the time it was given to
[Artaiz]."
At the outset, it should be borne in mind that the exchange of the presigned checks without
dateandamountbetweenthepartieshadbeentheirpracticeforalmostayearbyvirtueoftheir
moneylendingbusiness.Theyhadauthoritytofillupblanksuponinformationthatacheckcan
thenbeissued.
Thus,undertheNegotiableInstrumentsLaw,Section14ofwhichreads:
"Blanks,whenmaybefilled.Wheretheinstrumentiswantinginanymaterialparticular,
thepersoninpossessionthereofhasprimafacieauthoritytocompleteitbyfillingupthe
blankstherein.xxx"
[T]hispracticeisallowed.
Becauseofthepresumptionofauthority,theburdenofproofthattherewasnoauthorityorthat
authoritygrantedwasexceedediscarriedbythepersonwhoquestionssuchauthority.
Records show that [petitioner] had not proven lack of authority on the part of Artaiz to fill up
suchblanks.Havingfailedtoprovelackofauthority,itcanbepresumedthatArtaizwaswithin
hisrightstofillupblanksonthecheck.
xxxxxxxxx
Under the second element, [petitioner] states that the making and issuing of the check was
devoidofconsideration.Heclaimedthatthetransactionforwhichthecheckwasissueddidnot
materialize.However,itshouldbenotedthatwhenlackofconsiderationisclaimed,itpertains
tototallackofconsideration.Inthiscase,recordsshowthat[petitioner]recognizedthatthere
wasanamountduetoArtaiz,suchthathehadhisownversionofcomputationwithrespectto
theamountheowedtoArtaiz.16
We also note that with respect to the second element of the crime, consideration was duly
establishedinArtaiz'stestimony.17
Itbearsrepeatingthatthelackofcriminalintentonthepartoftheaccusedisirrelevant.18 The law
has made the mere act of issuing a worthless check a malum prohibitum, an act proscribed by
legislatureforbeingdeemedperniciousandinimicaltopublicwelfare.19Infact,evenincaseswhere
there had been payment, through compensation or some other means, there could still be
prosecutionforviolationofB.P.22.Thegravamenoftheoffenseunderthislawistheactofissuinga
worthlesscheckoracheckthatisdishonoreduponitspresentmentforpayment,notthenonpayment
oftheobligation.20
Wenowcometothepenaltyimposed.Onthisground,weruleforpetitioner.
Since1998,21thisCourthasheldthatitwouldbestservetheendsofcriminaljusticeif,infixingthe

penalty to be imposed for violation of B.P. 22, the same philosophy underlying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law be observed, i.e., that of redeeming valuable human material and preventing
unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the
protectionofthesocialorder.22ThispolicywasembodiedinSupremeCourtAdministrativeCircular
No.122000,23 authorizing the nonimposition of the penalty of imprisonment in B.P. 22 cases. We
also clarified in Administrative Circular No. 132001, as explained in Tanv.Mendez,24 that we are
notdecriminalizingB.P.22violations,norhaveweremovedimprisonmentasanalternativepenalty.
Needless to say, the determination of whether the circumstances warrant the imposition of a fine
alonerestssolelyuponthejudge.Shouldthejudgedecidethatimprisonmentisthemoreappropriate
penalty,AdministrativeCircularNo.122000oughtnottobedeemedahindrance.
Nevertheless,wenotethatultimately,thiscasewasaderivativeofthebreakdownofpetitionerand
Artaiz'spartnership,whichwasprecipitatedbypetitionerbeingimplicatedanddetainedforamurder
charge, from which he was subsequently acquitted. Under the circumstances of the case, and
bearinginmindtheguidelinessetinAdministrativeCircularNo.132004,wedeemtheimpositionof
afinealonewouldbestservetheinterestsofjustice,peggedatthemaximumamountprovidedforby
law, which is two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00),25 with the proviso that subsidiary
imprisonment will be meted out which shall not exceed six months in case of insolvency or
nonpayment.PetitionershouldalsopayArtaiztheamountofP844,000.00,andthecostofsuit.
INVIEWWHEREOF,thepetitionisDENIEDandtheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CR
No.20343isAFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATION.PetitionerisorderedtoindemnifyNemesioArtaizin
theamountofP844,000.00andthecostofsuit,withlegalinterestfromdateofjudicialdemand.The
sentenceofimprisonmentofone(1)yearisSETASIDEand,inlieuthereof,aFINEintheamountof
P200,000.00 is imposed upon petitioner, with subsidiary imprisonment not to exceed six months in
caseofinsolvencyornonpayment.
SOORDERED.
REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice

ADOLFOS.AZCUNA
AssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinion
oftheCourt'sDivision.
REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1InCAG.R.CRNo.20343promulgatedonApril10,2003,decidedbytheSeventeenth

Division,withJ.Pestaoasponente,andJJ.AbesamisandTijamconcurring.
2TheinformationdatedDecember11,1991wasfiledonJanuary24,1992anddocketedas

CriminalCaseNo.908V92.
3Records,pp.8283.SeeTSN,August25,1993,p.8andJune7,1993,pp.913.
4TSN,August25,1993pp.2829.
5Id.
6Id.
7Id.
8Id.
9TSN,August25,1993,pp.3235.SeeRecords,p.95.
10Id.,atpp.3538.
11Id.,atpp.3940.
12Seerecords,pp.96100.
13Id.,atpp.8190and9293.
14Tanv.Mendez,432Phil.760(2002)LuisWongv.CA,G.R.No.117857,February2,2001,

351SCRA100andAleriaJr.v.Velez,G.R.No.127400,November16,1998,298SCRA611,
618.
15Tingv.CA,398Phil.481(2000)Sycip,Jr.v.CA,G.R.No.125059,March17,2000,328

SCRA447.SeeBatasPambansaBilang22(1979),Section1.
16Records,pp.8586.(Citationsomitted)
17SeeTSN,August25,1993,pp.918.
18Peoplev.LoHoWing,G.R.No.88017,21January1991,193SCRA122,130.See

Macalalagv.People,G.R.No.164358,December20,2006,511SCRA400Tanv.Mendez,
432Phil.760(2002)Peoplev.Laggui,G.R.Nos.7626263,March16,1989,171SCRA305,
311Peoplev.Manzanilla,G.R.Nos.L6600304,11December1987,156SCRA279,283.
19Macalalagv.People,G.R.No.164358,December20,2006,511SCRA400Tanv.Mendez,

432Phil.760(2002)Peoplev.Laggui,G.R.Nos.7626263,March16,1989,171SCRA305,
311Peoplev.Manzanilla,G.R.Nos.L6600304,December11,1987,156SCRA279,283.
20Macalalagv.People,G.R.No.164358December20,2006,511SCRA400Tanv.Mendez,

432Phil.760(2002)Lozanov.Martinez,G.R.No.L63419,December18,1986,146SCRA
323,338.
21Vacav.CA,G.R.No.131714,November16,1998,298SCRA656,664.SeeLimv.People,

G.R.No.130038,September18,2000,340SCRA497,504.

22SupremeCourtAdministrativeCircularNo.122000,asclarifiedbyAdministrativeCircular

No.132001.
23G.R.No.138669,June6,2002.
24432Phil.760(2002).
25PursuanttoSection1ofB.P.22.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation