Remigio Ong borrowed 130k from Marcial de Jesus and issued a postdated check as security for repayment. However, the check bounced due to insufficient funds. Ong was found guilty of violating the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22) by the trial court and Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court affirmed Ong's liability, as B.P. 22 punishes the mere issuance of worthless checks regardless of intent. While Ong argued there was no proof of the loan or encashment of the check, these factors are not required for conviction under B.P. 22. The Court also found the witness De Jesus credible regarding the demand letter sent to Ong.
Remigio Ong borrowed 130k from Marcial de Jesus and issued a postdated check as security for repayment. However, the check bounced due to insufficient funds. Ong was found guilty of violating the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22) by the trial court and Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court affirmed Ong's liability, as B.P. 22 punishes the mere issuance of worthless checks regardless of intent. While Ong argued there was no proof of the loan or encashment of the check, these factors are not required for conviction under B.P. 22. The Court also found the witness De Jesus credible regarding the demand letter sent to Ong.
Remigio Ong borrowed 130k from Marcial de Jesus and issued a postdated check as security for repayment. However, the check bounced due to insufficient funds. Ong was found guilty of violating the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22) by the trial court and Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court affirmed Ong's liability, as B.P. 22 punishes the mere issuance of worthless checks regardless of intent. While Ong argued there was no proof of the loan or encashment of the check, these factors are not required for conviction under B.P. 22. The Court also found the witness De Jesus credible regarding the demand letter sent to Ong.
Remigio Ong borrowed 130k from Marcial de Jesus and issued a postdated check as security for repayment. However, the check bounced due to insufficient funds. Ong was found guilty of violating the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22) by the trial court and Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court affirmed Ong's liability, as B.P. 22 punishes the mere issuance of worthless checks regardless of intent. While Ong argued there was no proof of the loan or encashment of the check, these factors are not required for conviction under B.P. 22. The Court also found the witness De Jesus credible regarding the demand letter sent to Ong.
Remigio Ong vs. People of the Philippines and Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 139006. November 27, 2000 FACTS: Remigio Ong is a businessman who owns Master Metal Craft. One time, he retained the services of Marcial de Jesus as adviser on technical and financial matters, and also as President of Erocool Industries (another company owned by Ong). On December 17, 1992, Ong requested a loan from de Jesus for 130k to pay the 13th month pay of his employees. De Jesus obliged and produced a Producers Bank Check. To secure repayment, Ong issued a postdated FEBTC check for the same amount. Producers Bank check was cleared and debited to Ongs account. However, the FEBTC check bounced due to insufficient funds. De Jesus filed a case against Ong. The Trial Court found Ong guilty of B.P. 22. The CA affirmed it. Hence this case.
ISSUE: W/N Ong is liable for violation of B.P. 22.
RULING: YES. The prosecution clearly established the existence of a loan and subsequent encashment of Producers Bank Check. It also established that the FEBTC check issued by petitioner was dishonored due to insufficiency. The gravamen of offense punished by B.P 22 is the making and issuing of worthless check. Its the mere issuance of any kind of check, regardless of intent of parties. Petitioners arguments (1.) that the encashment of the FEBTC check is not clearly established; (2.) No proof of receipt of loan obligation) are immaterial; (3.) the check was issued without consideration. In actions based upon a negotiable instrument, it is unnecessary to aver or prove consideration, for consideration is imported and presumed from the fact that it is a negotiable instrument. The presumption exists whether the words "value received" appear on the instrument or not. B.P. 22 punishes the mere issuance. Prejudice or damage is not even a requisite for conviction. The intent of the law is to curb proliferation of worthless checks and ensure stability and integrity of checks as means of payment. The photocopy of demand letter (despite no original copy) is accepted due to the fact that is has been identified and shown in court when De Jesus testified regarding about it. Being an issue of credibility of a witness, the trial court is in a better position to settle such issue. In this case, it judged that the witness, de Jesus, is credible enough to accept his testimony on the demand letter. The court affirmed the ruling but removed the sentence of imprisonment. Thus, Ong is liable only for 150k fine and 130k civil indemnity.