G.R. No.

117857      February 2, 2001

LUIS S. WONG, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Facts:
Petitioner Wong was an collecting agent of LPI. Petitioner, however, had a history of unremitted
collections, which he duly acknowledged in a confirmation receipt he co-signed with his wife. Hence,
petitioner’s customers were required to issue postdated checks before LPI would accept their
purchase orders.

In early December 1985, Wong issued six postdated checks totaling P18,025.00. These checks
were initially intended to guarantee the calendar orders of customers who failed to issue post-dated
checks. However, following company policy, LPI refused to accept the checks as guarantees.
Instead, the parties agreed to apply the checks to the payment of petitioner’s unremitted collections
for 1984 amounting to P18,077.07 and LPI waived the P52.07 difference.

Before the maturity of the checks, Wong asked the petitioner not to deposit the checks and promised
to replace them within 30 days. However, petitioner reneged on his promise. Hence, LPI deposited
the checks with RCBC and these were returned for the reason "account closed." Despite the being
notified about the notice of dishonor, petitioner failed to make arrangements for payment within five
(5) banking days and consequently charge with three counts of violation of BP Blg. 22.

RTC found petitioner guilty of violation of B.P. 22. Petitioner claims that he issued that check not as
payment for any obligation but as a guarantee for the purchase order of his customer. CA affirmed
the decision of the RTC.

Issue:

whether the checks were issued merely as guarantee or for payment of petitioner’s unremitted
collections

whether or not the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of
the offense penalized under B.P. Blg. 22.

Ruling:

Said factual issue has been settled by the trial court and Court of Appeals. Although initially intended
to be used as guarantee for the purchase orders of customers, they found the checks were
eventually used to settle the remaining obligations of petitioner with LPI. Although Manuel Limtong
was the sole witness for the prosecution, his testimony was found sufficient to prove all the elements
of the offense charged. What the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the
purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of
issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum.
G.R. No. 190834               November 26, 2014

ARIEL T. LIM, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts:

Petitioner, Ariel Lim, issued two Bank of Commerce checks payable to CASH, in the amount of One
Hundred Thousand Pesos for each check. He gave the checks to Mr. Willie Castor as his campaign
donation to the latter's candidacy. Castor use the checks issued by the petitioner to pay the printing
materials. Claiming that the printing materials were delivered too late, Castor instructed petitioner to
issue a "Stop Payment" order for the two checks. Thus, the checks were dishonored by the bank
because of said order and during trial, when the bank officer was presented on the witness stand, he
admitted that said checks were drawn against insufficient funds.

On July 1998, Private complainant Magna B. Badiee sent two demand letters to petitioner and filed a
complaint against petitioner. After the lapse of more than one month from receipt of the demand
letters, and after receiving the subpoena from the Office of the Prosecutor, petitioner issued a
replacement check dated September 8, 1998 in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos and
private complainant was able to encash said replacement check. Six months after petitioner had
paid the amount of the bounced checks, two informations were filed against him before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila.

MeTC found petitioner guilty of two counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Petitioner appealed to the
RTC. RTC modifies the decision of MeTC and dismissed criminal case no.327138 on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the decision of the lower court’s findings that the accused is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt with respect to criminal case no. 07-24992. CA affirmed the decision of
RTC.

Issue:

Whether or not the criminal case against the petitioner must be dismissed on the ground that
petitioner has fully paid the amount of the dishonored checks even before the informations against
him were filed in court.

Ruling:

The case of Griffith v. CA is applicable in the case at bar, in Griffith,the Court acquitted the accused
due to the fact that two years before the filing of the Information for violation of B.P. No. 22, the
accused had paid the complainant an amount greater than the value of the bounced checks. The
Court did not differentiate as to whether payment was made before or after the complaint had been
filed with the Office of the Prosecutor. It only mattered that the amount stated in the dishonored
check had actually been paid before the Information against the accused was filed in court.

In this case, petitioner even voluntarily paid value of the bounced checks before the filing of
information against him. Records show that both in Griffith and in this case, petitioner had paid the
amount of the dishonored checks before the filing of the Informations in court. Verily, there is no
reason why the same liberality granted to the accused in Griffith should not likewise be extended to
herein petitioner.

The Court holds that petitioner must be exonerated from the imposition of penalties for violation of
B.P. Blg. 22 as he had already paid the amount of the dishonored checks six (6) months before the
filing of Informations with the court.

G.R. No. 203750, June 06, 2016

JORGE B. NAVARRA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HONGKONG

AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, Respondents.

Facts:

Reynolds Philippines Corporation has been a long-time client of private respondent

HSBC. On November 3, 1998, HSBC granted Reynolds a loan line of P82 Million and
a foreign exchange line of P900,000.00. Thereafter, Reynolds executed several
promissory notes in HSBC's favor. Subsequently, Reynolds, through Navarra and its
Vice-President for Corporate Affairs, George Molina, issued seven (7) Asia Trust
checks amounting to P45.2 Million for the payment of its loan obligation.

When HSBC presented 6 checks for payment, said checks were all dishonored and
returned for being "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds." Thus, the bank sent
Reynolds a notice of dishonor. Navarra received said notice but requested HSBC to
reconsider its decision to declare the corporation in default. HSBC sent another
notice of dishonor with respect to another and demanded its payment as well as
that of the six other checks previously dishonored. Despite said demands, however,
Reynolds refused to pay. Hence, HSBC filed Informations against Navarra and
Molina for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 before the Makati Metropolitan
Trial Court.

Issue:

Whether or not Navarra is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of BP 22.

Ruling:

There are two (2) ways of violating BP 22: (1) by making or drawing and issuing a
check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that the check
is not sufficiently funded; and (2) by having sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank at the time of issue but failing to do so to cover the full amount of the
check when presented to the drawee bank within a period of ninety (90) days.9

The elements of BP 22 under the first situation, pertinent to the present case, are:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

(1) The making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for 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) The 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 mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum; it is simply the
commission of the act that the law prohibits, and not its character or effect, that
determines whether or not the provision has been violated. Malice or criminal intent
is completely immaterial.

The fact that Navarra signed the subject checks in behalf of Reynolds cannot, in any
way, exculpate him from liability, criminal or civil. Section 1 of BP 22 provides:

Section 1. Checks without sufficient funds.

xxxx

Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or

persons, who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable
under this Act.

When a corporate officer issues a worthless check in the corporate name, he may
be held personally liable for violating a penal statute. The statute imposes criminal
penalties on anyone who draws or issues a check on any bank with knowledge that
the funds are not sufficient in such bank to meet the check upon presentment.
Moreover, the corporate officer cannot shield himself from liability on the ground
that it was a corporate act and not his personal act. The general rule is that a
corporate officer who issues a bouncing corporate check can be held civilly liable
when he is convicted. The criminal liability of the person who issued the bouncing
checks in behalf of a corporation stands independent of the civil liability of the
corporation itself, such civil liability arising from the Civil Code. But BP 22 itself
fused this criminal liability with the corresponding civil liability of the corporation
itself by allowing the complainant to recover such civil liability, not from the
corporation, but from the person who signed the check in its behalf.

he legislative intent behind the enactment of BP 22, as may be gathered from the
statement of the bill's sponsor when then Cabinet Bill No. 9 was introduced before
the Batasan Pambansa, is to discourage the issuance of bouncing checks, to
prevent checks from becoming "useless scraps of paper" and to restore
respectability to checks, all without distinction as to the purpose of the issuance of
the checks.

The Court fails to find any error in Navarra's conviction by the trial courts for
violation of the Bouncing Checks Law. While the Court commiserates with him, as
he was only performing his official duties as the finance officer of the corporation he
represents, it must interpret and give effect to the statute, as harsh as it may be,
because that is the law. His best recourse now is to proceed after Reynolds, in
whose behalf the dishonored checks were issued, to recover the amount of
damages incurred.

G.R. No. 177438 : September 24, 2012

AMADA RESTERIO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Respondent.

Facts:

On May 2002 petitioner, Amada Resterio draw and issue ChinaBank Check in the
amount of P 50,000.00 payable to the order of Bernardo T. Villadolid to apply on
account or for value. When the check was presented for encashment it was
dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason "ACCT. CLOSED" and despite notice
of dishonor and demands for payment, petitioner failed and refused to redeem the
check or to make arrangement for payment in full by the drawee of such check
within five (5) banking days after receiving the notice of dishonor.

MTCC found the petitioner guilty as charged. Petitioner appealed to RTC but RTC
affirmed the conviction. Petitioner appealed in CA but found the petition without
merit and denied the petitioner for review.

Issues:

Whether or not all the elements of a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 were
established beyond reasonable doubt

Ruling:

In the case at bar, the existence of the first element of the violation is not disputed.
According to the petitioner, she was "required to issue a check as a collateral for
the obligation," and that "she was left with no alternative but to borrow the check
of her friend xxx and used the said check as a collateral of her loan."

The State likewise proved the existence of the third element. On direct
examination, Villadolid declared that the check had been dishonored upon its
presentment to the drawee bank through the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) as
the collecting bank. The return check memorandum issued by BPI indicated that the
account had already been closed.

To establish the existence of the second element, the State should present the
giving of a written notice of the dishonor to the drawer, maker or issuer of the
dishonored check.

A notice of dishonor received by the maker or drawer of the check is thus

indispensable before a conviction can ensue. The notice of dishonor may be sent by
the offended party or the drawee bank. The notice must be in writing. A mere oral
notice to pay a dishonored check will not suffice. The lack of a written notice is fatal
for the prosecution.

In the case at bar, no effort was made to show that the demand letter was received
by petitioners or their agent. All that we have on record is an illegible signature on
the registry receipt as evidence that someone received the letter. As to whether
this signature is that of one of the petitioners or of their authorized agent remains a
mystery. From the registry receipt alone, it is possible that petitioners or their
authorized agent did receive the demand letter. Possibilities, however, cannot
replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. There being insufficient proof that
petitioners received notice that their checks had been dishonored, the presumption
that they knew of the insufficiency of the funds therefor cannot arise.

Also, that the wife of Villadolid verbally informed the petitioner that the check had
bounced did not satisfy the requirement of showing that written notices of dishonor
had been made to and received by the petitioner. The verbal notices of dishonor
were not effective because it is already settled that a notice of dishonor must be in
writing.

In light of the foregoing, the proof of the guilt of the petitioner for a violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for issuing to Villadolid the unfunded Chinabank Check No.
LPU-A0141332 in the amount of P 50,000.00 did not satisfy the quantum of proof
beyond reasonable doubt. The Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the
Court of Appeals and ACQUITS petitioner AMADA RESTERIO of the violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 as charged for failure to establish her guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.