Rico vs People

Ben Rico is a contractor who purchases construction materials from Ever Lucky Commercial.
Through the course of his business with Ever Lucky, he issued post!dated checks. The
checks were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds as well as due to "closed account#. Ever
Lucky immediately made demands for Rico to pay up. $o formal letter of demand was sent to
Rico. Ever Lucky eventually sued Rico for violation of Batas %ambansa &&.
ISSUE: 'hether or not Rico is guilty of violating B% &&.
HELD: No. The law enumerates the elements of violation of B.%. &&, namely ()* the making,
drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value+ (&* the knowledge of the
maker, 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 (,* the
subse-uent 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.
The prosecution only proved elements one and two in the case at bar. But it failed to prove that
Rico has knowledge of the insufficiency of funds in the drawee bank when the checks were
presented for payment.
.nder the law, there shall be a prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficiency on the part of
the accused by making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the
drawee because of insufficient funds or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (/0*
days from the date of the check. 1owever, this prima facie presumption shall not arise if within
days from receiving the notice of dishonor, the accused shall have paid or made arrangement to
pay in full.
2n the case at bar, no notice of dishonor was sent to Rico hence the presumption did not arise.
3nd so since the presumption did not arise, it was up to the prosecution to prove Rico4s
knowledge of insufficiency which it failed to do.
Lim vs People
FACTS
5n 3ugust &, )//0, petitioner bought various kinds of 6ewelry worth %,00,000.00 from 7aria
3ntonia 8eguan. 8he wrote out a check with the same amount, dated 3ugust &, )//0, payable
to "cash# drawn on 7etrobank and gave the check to 8eguan.
The ne9t day, petitioner again went to 8eguan4s store and purchased 6ewelry valued at
%&:),;;<.00. %etitioner issued another check payable to "cash# dated 3ugust );, )//0 drawn
on 7etrobank in the amount of %&:),;;<.00= and sent the check to 8eguan through a certain
3urelia $adera.
8eguan deposited the two checks with her bank. The checks were returned with a notice of
dishonor. %etitioner4s account in the bank from which the checks were drawn was closed.
.pon demand, petitioner promised to pay 8eguan the amounts of the two dishonored checks,
but she never did.
5n >une , )//), an 3ssistant City %rosecutor of Cebu filed with the RTC, Cebu City, Branch
&,, two informations against petitioner for violations of B% $o. &&.
3fter due trial, on ?ecember &/, )//&, the trial court rendered a decision in the two cases
convicting petitioner.
%etitioner appealed to the C3, but the same was dismissed by the C3 in its 5ctober ), )//;
?ecision wherein it affirmed in toto the RTC4s ?ecision.
ISSUE
'5$ Lim violated B.%. $o. &&.
HELD
The elements of B.%. Blg. && are@
"()* The making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value+
"(&* The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its
presentment+ and
"(,* The subse-uent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the
bank to stop payment.#
The gravamen of B.P. No. is the ac! of ma"ing an# iss$ing a %or!&less c&ec" or
one that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment. 3nd the acc$se# faile# !o sa!isf'
!&e amo$n! of !&e c&ec" or ma"e arrangemen! for i!s pa'men! %i!&in ( )an"ing
#a's from no!ice of #is&onor. The act is malum prohibitum, pernicious and inimical to
public welfare. Laws are created to achieve a goal intended and to guide and prevent against an
evil or mischief. 'hy and to whom the check was issued, and the terms A conditions
surrounding the issuance of the checks, are irrelevant in determining culpability.
.nder B% $o. &&, one need not prove that the check was issued in payment of an obligation, or
that there was damage.
2t was ruled in United States v. Go Chico, that in acts mala prohibita, the only in-uiry is,
"has the law been violatedB# 'hen dealing with acts mala prohibita C#it is not necessary
that the appellant should have acted with criminal intent. 2n many crimes, the intention
of the person who commits the crime is entirely immaterialD#
This case is a perfect e9ample of an act mala prohibita. The first and last elements of the
offense are admittedly present. B.P. No. * Sec!ion creates a pres$mp!ion juris
tantum that the second element prima facie exists when the first and third elements of
the offense are present. 2f not rebutted, it suffices to sustain a conviction. To escape liability,
she must prove that the second element was absent. %etitioner failed to rebut this presumption
and she failed to pay the amount of the checks or make arrangement for its payment within
banking days from receipt of notice of dishonor. B.%. $o. && was clearly violated. Hoc quidem
per quam durum est sed ita lex scripta est. The law may be e9ceedingly hard but so the law
is written.
1owever, the penalty imposed on petitioner must be modified. 2n Vaca v. Court of
ppealsE&/< 8CR3 ;< ()//<*F, it was held that in determining the penalty to be imposed for
violation of B.%. $o. &&, the philosophy underlying the 2ndeterminate 8entence Law applies. The
philosophy is to redeem valuable human material, and to prevent unnecessary deprivation of
personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order.
The prison sentence imposed on petitioners is deleted, and imposed on them only a fine
double the amount of the chec! issued.
Conse-uently, the prison sentences imposed on petitioner are deleted. The two fines imposed
for each violation, each amounting to %&00,000.00 are appropriate and sufficient. The award of
moral damages and order to pay attorney4s fees are deleted for lack of sufficient basis.