637 Phil.

645 Bank 15, 1998

-do- September 15, 1998 January 15, 1999 125,000.00 0000045805
SECOND DIVISION -do- September 20, 1998 January 20, 1999 2,500.00 0000045809
-do- September 20, 1998 January 20, 1999 100,000.00 0000045810
G.R. No. 191404, July 05, 2010
-do- September 30, 1998 January 30, 1999 5,000.00 0000045814
EUMELIA R. MITRA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE -do- September 30, 1998 January 30, 1999 200,000.00 0000045815
PHILIPPINES AND FELICISIMO S. TARCELO, RESPONDENTS. -do- October 3, 1998 February 3, 1999 2,500.00 0000045875
-do- October 3, 1998 February 3, 1999 100,000.00 0000045876
DECISION -do- November 17, 1998 February17, 1999 5,000.00 0000046061
-do- November 17, 1998 March 17, 1999 5,000.00 0000046062
-do- November 17, 1998 March 17, 1999 200,000.00 0000046063
MENDOZA, J.:
-do- November 19, 1998 January 19, 1999 2,500.00 0000046065
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court -do- November 19, 1998 February19, 1999 2,500.00 0000046066
assailing the July 31, 2009 Decision[1] and the February 11, 2010 Resolution -do- November 19, 1998 March 19, 1999 2,500.00 0000046067
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31740. The subject -do- November 19, 1998 March 19, 1999 100,000.00 0000046068
decision and resolution affirmed the August 22, 2007 Decision of the -do- November 20, 1998 January 20, 1999 10,000.00 0000046070
Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Batangas City (RTC) which, in turn, -do- November 20, 1998 February 20, 10,000.00 0000046071
affirmed the May 21, 2007 Decision of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, 1999
Branch 2, Batangas City (MTCC). -do- November 20, 1998 March 20, 1999 10,000.00 0000046072
-do- November 20, 1998 March 20, 1999 10,000.00 0000046073
THE FACTS: -do- November 30, 1998 January 30, 1999 2,500.00 0000046075
-do- November 30, 1998 February 28, 2,500.00 0000046076
Petitioner Eumelia R. Mitra (Mitra) was the Treasurer, and Florencio L.
1999
Cabrera, Jr. (now deceased) was the President, of Lucky Nine Credit
-do- November 30, 1998 March 30, 1999 2,500.00 0000046077
Corporation (LNCC), a corporation engaged in money lending activities.
-do- November 30, 1998 March 30, 1999 100,000.00 0000046078
Between 1996 and 1999, private respondent Felicisimo S. Tarcelo (Tarcelo)
invested money in LNCC. As the usual practice in money placement When Tarcelo presented these checks for payment, they were dishonored for
transactions, Tarcelo was issued checks equivalent to the amounts he the reason "account closed." Tarcelo made several oral demands on LNCC
invested plus the interest on his investments. The following checks, signed for the payment of these checks but he was frustrated. Constrained, in 2002,
by Mitra and Cabrera, were issued by LNCC to Tarcelo.[2] he caused the filing of seven informations for violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 (BP 22) in the total amount of P925,000.00 with the MTCC in
Bank Date Issued Date of Check Amount Check No. Batangas City.[3]
Security September January 15, 1999 P 3,125.00 0000045804
After trial on the merits, the MTCC found Mitra and Cabrera guilty of the
charges. The fallo of the May 21, 2007 MTCC Decision[4] reads: Mitra is now before this Court on a petition for review and submits these
issues:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the accused
FLORENCIO I. CABRERA, JR., and EUMELIA R. MITRA are hereby 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE ELEMENTS OF VIOLATION OF
found guilty of the offense of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 and are BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 22 MUST BE PROVED BEYOND
hereby ORDERED to respectively pay the following fines for each violation REASONABLE DOUBT AS AGAINST THE CORPORATION WHO
and with subsidiary imprisonment in all cases, in case of insolvency: OWNS THE CURRENT ACCOUNT WHERE THE SUBJECT
CHECKS WERE DRAWN BEFORE LIABILITY ATTACHES TO
1. Criminal Case No. 43637 - P200,000.00 THE SIGNATORIES.
2. Criminal Case No. 43640 - P100,000.00
3. Criminal Case No. 43648 - P100,000.00 2. WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE
4. Criminal Case No. 43700 - P125,000.00 OF DISHONOR AND DEMAND TO PAY TO THE PETITIONER
5. Criminal Case No. 43702 - P200,000.00 AND THE LATE FLORENCIO CABRERA, JR.
6. Criminal Case No. 43704 - P100,000.00
7. Criminal Case No. 43706 - P100,000.00 The Court denies the petition.

Said accused, nevertheless, are adjudged civilly liable and are ordered to pay, A check is a negotiable instrument that serves as a substitute for money and
in solidum, private complainant Felicisimo S. Tarcelo the amount of NINE as a convenient form of payment in financial transactions and
HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P925,000.000). obligations. The use of checks as payment allows commercial and banking
transactions to proceed without the actual handling of money, thus, doing
SO ORDERED. away with the need to physically count bills and coins whenever payment is
made. It permits commercial and banking transactions to be carried out
Mitra and Cabrera appealed to the Batangas RTC contending that: they quickly and efficiently. But the convenience afforded by checks is damaged
signed the seven checks in blank with no name of the payee, no amount by unfunded checks that adversely affect confidence in our commercial and
stated and no date of maturity; they did not know when and to whom those banking activities, and ultimately injure public interest.
checks would be issued; the seven checks were only among those in one or
two booklets of checks they were made to sign at that time; and that they BP 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law was enacted for the specific purpose of
signed the checks so as not to delay the transactions of LNCC because they addressing the problem of the continued issuance and circulation of unfunded
did not regularly hold office there.[5] checks by irresponsible persons. To stem the harm caused by these bouncing
checks to the community, BP 22 considers the mere act of issuing an
The RTC affirmed the MTCC decision and later denied their motion for unfunded check as an offense not only against property but also against
reconsideration. Meanwhile, Cabrera died. Mitra alone filed this petition for public order.[7] The purpose of BP 22 in declaring the mere issuance of a
review[6] claiming, among others, that there was no proper service of the bouncing check as malum prohibitum is to punish the offender in order to
notice of dishonor on her. The Court of Appeals dismissed her petition for deter him and others from committing the offense, to isolate him from
lack of merit. society, to reform and rehabilitate him, and to maintain social order.[8] The
penalty is stiff. BP 22 imposes the penalty of imprisonment for at least 30 banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the
days or a fine of up to double the amount of the check or both imprisonment drawee.
and fine.
Mitra posits in this petition that before the signatory to a bouncing corporate
Specifically, BP 22 provides: check can be held liable, all the elements of the crime of violation of BP 22
must first be proven against the corporation. The corporation must first be
SECTION 1. Checks Without Sufficient Funds. -- Any person who makes declared to have committed the violation before the liability attaches to the
or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at signatories of the checks.[9]
the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, The Court finds Itself unable to agree with Mitra's posture. The third
which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency paragraph of Section 1 of BP 22 reads: "Where the check is drawn by a
of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who actually signed
the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment, shall the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act." This
be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than provision recognizes the reality that a corporation can only act through its
one (1) year or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount officers. Hence, its wording is unequivocal and mandatory - that the person
of the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand who actually signed the corporate check shall be held liable for a violation of
Pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. BP 22. This provision does not contain any condition, qualification or
limitation.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a In the case of Llamado v. Court of Appeals,[10] the Court ruled that the
check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the accused was liable on the unfunded corporate check which he signed as
full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from treasurer of the corporation. He could not invoke his lack of involvement in
the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee the negotiation for the transaction as a defense because BP 22 punishes the
bank. 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.
Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or In this case, Mitra signed the LNCC checks as treasurer. Following Llamado,
persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be she must then be held liable for violating BP 22.
liable under this Act.
Another essential element of a violation of BP 22 is the drawer's knowledge
SECTION 2. Evidence of Knowledge of Insufficient Funds. -- The making, that he has insufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank to cover his
drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee check. Because this involves a state of mind that is difficult to establish, BP
because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented 22 creates the prima facie presumption that once the check is dishonored, the
within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie drawer of the check gains knowledge of the insufficiency, unless within five
evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such banking days from receipt of the notice of dishonor, the drawer pays the
maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes holder of the check or makes arrangements with the drawee bank for the
arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) payment of the check. The service of the notice of dishonor gives the drawer
the opportunity to make good the check within those five days to avert his presumption that Mitra and Cabrera knew that there were insufficient funds
prosecution for violating BP 22. to cover the checks upon their presentment for payment. In fact, the account
was already closed.
Mitra alleges that there was no proper service on her of the notice of dishonor
and, so, an essential element of the offense is missing. This contention raises To reiterate the elements of a violation of BP 22 as contained in the above-
a factual issue that is not proper for review. It is not the function of the Court quoted provision, a violation exists where:
to re-examine the finding of facts of the Court of Appeals. Our review is
limited to errors of law and cannot touch errors of facts unless the petitioner 1. a person makes or draws and issues a check to apply on account
shows that the trial court overlooked facts or circumstances that warrant a or for value;
different disposition of the case[11] or that the findings of fact have no basis
on record. Hence, with respect to the issue of the propriety of service on 2. the person who makes or draws and issues the check knows at
Mitra of the notice of dishonor, the Court gives full faith and credit to the the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or
consistent findings of the MTCC, the RTC and the CA. credit with the drawee bank for the full payment of the check
upon its presentment; and
The defense postulated that there was no demand served upon the accused,
said denial deserves scant consideration. Positive allegation of the 3. the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
prosecution that a demand letter was served upon the accused prevails over insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been dishonored
the denial made by the accused. Though, having denied that there was no for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid
demand letter served on April 10, 2000, however, the prosecution positively reason, ordered the bank to stop payment. [13]
alleged and proved that the questioned demand letter was served upon the
accused on April 10, 2000, that was at the time they were attending Court
hearing before Branch I of this Court. In fact, the prosecution had There is no dispute that Mitra signed the checks and that the bank dishonored
submitted a Certification issued by the other Branch of this Court certifying the checks because the account had been closed. Notice of dishonor was
the fact that the accused were present during the April 10, 2010 hearing. properly given, but Mitra failed to pay the checks or make arrangements for
With such straightforward and categorical testimony of the witness, the Court their payment within five days from notice. With all the above elements duly
believes that the prosecution has achieved what was dismally lacking in the proven, Mitra cannot escape the civil and criminal liabilities that BP 22
three (3) cases of Betty King, Victor Ting and Caras - evidence of the imposes for its breach.[14]
receipt by the accused of the demand letter sent to her. The Court accepts the
prosecution's narrative that the accused refused to sign the same to evidence WHEREFORE, the July 31, 2009 Decision and the February 11, 2010
their receipt thereof. To require the prosecution to produce the signature of Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 31740 are hereby
the accused on said demand letter would be imposing an undue hardship on AFFIRMED.
it. As well, actual receipt acknowledgment is not and has never been
required of the prosecution either by law or jurisprudence.[12] [emphasis SO ORDERED.
supplied]
Carpio, (Chairperson), Nachura, Peralta, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
With the notice of dishonor duly served and disregarded, there arose the
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes with Associate Justice
Isaias P. Dicdican and Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison concurring.

[2]
Complaint-Affidavits, Rollo, pp. 109-115.

[3]
Id. at 116-129.

[4]
Id. at 130-134.

[5]
Id. at 143.

[6]
Id. at 75-105.

[7]
Lozano v. Martinez, 230 Phil. 406, 428 (1986).

[8]
Rosario v. Co, G.R. No. 133608, August 26, 2008, 563 SCRA 239, 253.

[9]
Rollo, p. 47.

[10]
337 Phil. 153, 160 (1997).

[11]
American Home Assurance Company v. Chua, 368 Phil. 555, 569 (1999).

[12]
Rollo, p. 133.

[13]
Rigor v. People, 485 Phil. 125, 139 (2004).

[14]
In Gosiaco v. Ching, G.R. No. 173807, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 471,
483, we held an accused corporate officer free from civil liability for the
corporate debt after the lower court acquitted the accused of criminal liability
under BP 22. Note that this is a totally different case from the present case as
the issue here is both criminal and civil liability.