MITRA V PEOPLE - Digest
MITRA V PEOPLE - Digest
MITRA V PEOPLE - Digest
FACTS:
Checks issued to Felicisimo S. Tarcelo by Lucky Nine Credit Corporation (LNCC) were dishonored for the
reason "account closed." The checks were signed by Mitra and Cabrera (deceased), LNCC’s treasurer and
president respectively. Frustrated after several demands for payment, Tarcelo instituted seven
information against Mitra and Cabrera for violation of BP 22.
Mitra and Cabrera claimed that they signed the checks in blank so as not to delay the transactions of LNCC
because they did not regularly hold office there. They did not know when and to whom those checks
would be issued. Nevertheless, the MTCC, RTC and CA declared Mitra and Cabrera guilty of the offense
charged.
Mitra now contends that before the signatory to a bouncing corporate check can be held liable, all the
elements of the crime of violation of BP 22 must first be proven against the corporation.
ISSUE:
Is it necessary that the corporation must first be declared to have committed the violation before the
liability attaches to the signatories of the check?
HELD:
NO. The third paragraph of Section 1 of BP 22 reads: "Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company
or entity, the person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable
under this Act." This provision recognizes the reality that a corporation can only act through its officers.
Hence, its wording is unequivocal and mandatory — that the person who actually signed the corporate
check shall be held liable for a violation of BP 22. This provision does not contain any condition,
qualification or limitation.
Mitra cannot also invoke her lack of involvement in the negotiation for the transaction as a defense
because BP 22 punishes the mere issuance of a bouncing check, not the purpose for which the check was
issued or in consideration of the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. In this case, Mitra signed
the LNCC checks as treasurer. Following the case of Llamado v CA, she must then be held liable for violating
BP 22.