Idos vs CA

The petitioner herein, Irma L. Idos, is a businesswoman engaged in leather tanning.

Her accuser for violation of B.P. 22 is her erstwhile supplier and business partner,
the complainant below, Eddie Alarilla.
The complainant Eddie Alarilla supplied chemicals and rawhide to the accusedappellant Irma L. Idos for use in the latters business of manufacturing leather. In
1985, he joined the accused-appellants business and formed with her a partnership
under the style Tagumpay Manufacturing, with offices in Bulacan and Cebu City.
The partnership between petitioner and complainant was short-lived. To pay
Alarillas share of the asset, Idos issued 4 post dated checks. Alarilla was able to
encash the first, second and fourth checks but the third was dishonored for
insufficiency of funds. He demanded payment but Idos failed to pay. She claimed
that the checks were issued as assurance of Alarillas share in the assets of the
partnership and that it was supposed to be deposited until the stocks were sold. He
filed an information for violation of BP blg. 22 against Idos in which she was found
guilty by the trial court.
Contention of SOL GEN: That under the Bouncing Checks Law, the elements of
deceit and damage are not essential or required to constitute a violation thereof. In
his view, the only essential element is the knowledge on the part of the maker or
drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his/her funds at the time of the issuance
of said check.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is guilty of violating BP 22
Ruling:
As decided by this Court, the elements of the offense penalized under B.P. 22, are as
follows: (1) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or
for value; (2) 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 (3) subsequent 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 has a duty to prove all the elements of the crime, including the acts
that give rise to the prima facie presumption; petitioner, on the other hand, has a
right to rebut the prima facie presumption. Therefore, if such knowledge of
insufficiency of funds is proven to be actually absent or non-existent, the accused

should not be held liable for the offense defined under the first paragraph of Section
1 of B.P. 22. Although the offense charged is a malum prohibitum, the prosecution is
not thereby excused from its responsibility of proving beyond reasonable doubt all
the elements of the offense, one of which is knowledge of the insufficiency of funds.
Complainant did not present any evidence that petitioner signed and issued four
checks actually knowing that funds therefor would be insufficient at the time
complainant would present them to the drawee bank. For it was uncertain at the
time of issuance of the checks whether the unsold goods would have been sold, or
whether the receivables would have been collected by the time the checks would be
encashed. As it turned out, three were fully funded when presented to the bank; the
remaining one was settled only later on.
Since petitioner issued these four checks without actual knowledge of the
insufficiency of funds, she could not be held liable under B.P. 22 when one was not
honored right away. For it is basic doctrine that penal statutes such as B.P. 22 must
be construed with such strictness as to carefully safeguard the rights of the
defendant . The element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds has to be proved by
the prosecution; absent said proof, petitioner could not be held criminally liable
under that law. Moreover, the presumption of prima facie knowledge of such
insufficiency in this case was actually rebutted by petitioners evidence.
Also, the prosecution failed to prove that there was a NOTICE OF DISHONOR to
the petitioner. The absence of notice of dishonor is crucial in the present case.
Because no notice of dishonor was actually sent to and received by the petitioner,
the prima facie presumption that she knew about the insufficiency of funds cannot
apply. Section 2 of B.P. 22 clearly provides that this presumption arises not from the
mere fact of drawing, making and issuing a bum check; there must also be a
showing that, within five banking days from receipt of the notice of dishonor , such
maker or drawer failed to pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon or to
make arrangement for its payment in full by the drawee of such check.

Babanto vs CFI
Facts:
Babanto is a police officer while the victim, Dagohoy is a minor (13 yrs old) and a
moron. Babanto alleged that she was sitting in the market at dawn when Babanto,
in police uniform, approached her and brought her to the ABC Hall. It was there that
the sexual act was consummated. Afterwards, he threatened to kill her if she tells
her parents. She then noticed that her vagina was bleeding. She went home
afterwards and washed her clothes the following morning. She confessed to her
mother after the latter noticed that she was weak. Babanto, on the other hand,
claims that he was out patrolling with Patrolman Apos that night. He claims that he
saw a girl (who is Dagohoy) and a boy going to the market. They followed the two
and saw Dagohoy sitting. They then brought her to the municipal as she was merely
roaming and in order to protect her. However, she was able to run away as she was
being brought to the municipal hall. Babanto was charged with rape but was
convicted of qualified seduction. The CFI found that
His appeal is based on an erroneous conviction. His appeal was seconded by the
OSG who says that the charge did not allege virginity which is an essential element
to the crime of qualified seduction
Issue: Whether or not virginity must be alleged in the complaint in order to qualify
the crime to qualified seduction.
Ruling:
The complaint filed alleged that the accused abused his position as policeman by
having carnal knowledge of a13 year old girl. However, there is no allegation that
the complainant was a virgin. Though it is true that virginity is presumed if the girl is
over 12 but under 18, unmarried and of good reputation, virginity is still an essential
element of the crime of qualified seduction and must be alleged in the complaint. A
conviction of the crime of qualified seduction without the allegation of virginity
would violate the petitioners right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him. Petitioner is guilty of rape,consider the victims age, mental
abnormality and efficiency. There was also sufficient intimidation with the accused
wearing his uniform

Doctrine: The elements of qualified seduction are: (1) the offended party is a virgin;
(2) she must be over 12 and under 18 years of age; (3) the offender has sexual
intercourse with her; and (4) the offender is a person in public authority, priest,
house servant, domestic, guardian, teacher, one entrusted with the education or
custody of the offended party, or a brother or ascendant of the latter. Virginity is
presumed if the girl is over 12 and under 18 years of age, is unmarried and of good
reputation. The presumption notwithstanding, virginity is still an essential element
of the crime of qualified seduction and must be alleged in the complaint. A
conviction for the crime of qualified seduction without the allegation of virginity
would violate the petitioner's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him

People vs. Sangalang

Facts:
The Sangalang spouses together with Gloria and Bienvenido were charged of the
crime of simulation of birth. The information alleged that a child was furnished by
Gloria to the Sangalangs. Accused Bienvenido registered the birth of said child in
the local civil registrar by supplying to said office the necessary information
required so that a birth certificate would be issued. He named the Sangalangs as
the childs parents. A birth certificate was hence issued. Information did not contain
any specific allegation as to what the spouses did, except that they had conspired
with Gloria and Bienvenido.
Issue:
Whether or not the act of registration is a requirement to commit the crime of
simulation of birth.
Ruling:
In the crime of simulation of births, it must be shown that the pretending parents
have registered or caused in the registration of the child as their own with the
Registry of Births, or that in doing so they were motivated by a desire to cause the
loss of any trace as to the childs true filiation to his prejudice.In the instant case, SC
found no evidence to support the finding of Trial Court that the registration was
effected by the Sangalangs. As the evidence would show, it was their daughter
Alicia (not Bienvenido, but still not the spouses)who had a hand in the registration
of the child).