Esaga, Shirley L.

BSA-3
Case Digest: LUIS WONG VS. CA
(G.R. No. 117857; February 2, 2001)

Limtong Press Inc. (LPI) filed a case with Petitioner Luis

Wong in connection with his conviction for violation of the Bouncing
Checks Law (BP Blg. 22). The RTC rendered a choice sentencing Wong of
the offenses charged. The CA moreover asserted the said choice. That
result to the present petition.

Facts:

Luis Wong is an agent of Limtong Press. Inc. (LPI), a producer of

calendars. LPI would print samples and give them to agents to present
to customers. The operators would get the buy requests of clients and
forward them to LPI. In the time of printing the calendars, LPI would
transport the calendars to the clients. From there on, the agent would
come around to gather the installments. Petitioner, be that as it may,
had a background marked by unremitted assortments. Henceforth,
petitioner's clients were required to issue postdated checks before
LPI would acknowledge their buy orders.

In the beginning of December 1985, Wong gave six (6) postdated

checks totaling P18,025.00, all dated December 30, 1985 and drawn
payable to the order of LPI. In any case, following organization
approach, LPI wouldn't acknowledge the checks as certifications.
Rather, the gatherings consented to apply the checks to the
installment of candidate's unremitted collections for 1984 adding up
to P18,077.07.3 LPI deferred the P52.07 contrast.

Prior to the development of the checks, petitioner persuaded LPI

not to store the checks and vowed to supplant them inside 30 days. In
any case, applicant reneged on his guarantee. Consequently, on June 5,
1986, LPI kept the checks with Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation
(RCBC). The checks were returned for the explanation "account closed."
The dishonor of the checks was confirmed by the RCBC return slip.
 On June 20, 1986, complainant through guidance told the
petitioner of the dishonor. Petitioner neglected to make arrangement
of payment within five (5) banking days. On November 6, 1987,
petitioner was accused of three (3) counts of violation of B.P. Blg.
224 under three separate informations for the three checks adding up
to P5,500.00, P3,375.00, and P6,410.00.5. The RTC rendered
a choice sentencing Wong of the offenses charged. The
CA moreover asserted the said choice. That result to the present
petition.

Issues:

May the prosecution apply the prima facie presumption of

"knowledge of lack of funds" against the drawer if the checks were
belatedly deposited by the complainant 157 days after maturity, or
will it be then necessary for the prosecution to show actual proof of
"lack of funds" during the 90-day term?

Ruling:

Petitioner avers that since the complainant deposited the checks

Under Section 186 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, "a check

must be presented for payment within a reasonable time after its issue
or the drawer will be discharged from liability thereon to the extent
of the loss caused by the delay." By current banking practice, a check
becomes stale after more than six (6) months, or 180 days. Private
respondent herein deposited the checks 157 days after the date of the
check. Hence said checks cannot be considered stale.

157 days after the December 30, 1985 maturity date, the
presumption of knowledge of lack of funds under Section 2 of B.P. Blg.
22 should not apply to him. He further claims that he should not be
expected to keep his bank account active and funded beyond the ninety-
day period.