Case: TERESITA ALCANTARA VERGARA vs PEOPLE OF THE 10.

10. The constitutional presumption of innocence tilted the scales in favor of the petitioner
PHILIPPINES GR no. 160328
Date: February 04, 2005 l Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J.
Subject: Equipoise Rule
Sub-topic: Batas Pambansa Bldg 22 (BP 22)
Digested by: Shiela Maquiling
Doctrine:
It is a court decision regarding a case of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), which covers
checks issued without sufficient funds. The petitioner, Teresita Alcantara Vergara, was found guilty of
violating BP 22 for issuing a check with insufficient funds. The check was issued on December 15,
1988, and was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank. The petitioner argued that she should
be acquitted because she replaced the check with several other checks totaling the same amount
before the information was filed. The court ruled that to hold the petitioner liable, it must be
established that she knew of the insufficiency of funds at the time the check was issued. Since it was
not clearly established when the petitioner was notified of the dishonor, the court found that the
presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds did not apply. Therefore, the petitioner's conviction
was overturned. The case highlights the importance of establishing the timeline of events when
determining liability under BP 22.
since the prosecution failed to prove the evidentiary facts that would establish the
presumption of knowledge of the insufficiency of funds.
11. The petitioner made full payment of the value of the dishonored check before the
information was filed.
12. The prosecution's case must rise and fall on the strength of its own evidence, and the
evidence in this case was lacking to convict the petitioner of the crime charged.
Issue:
The main issue in the case was whether the petitioner should be convicted of violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), which covers checks issued without sufficient funds. The petitioner argued
that she should be acquitted because she replaced the check with several other checks totaling the
same amount before the information was filed. The court ruled that to hold the petitioner liable, it
must be established that she knew of the insufficiency of funds at the time the check was issued.
Since it was not clearly established when the petitioner was notified of the dishonor, the court found
that the presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds did not apply. Therefore, the petitioner's
conviction was overturned and she was acquitted of the charge of violation of BP 22 .
What is the case surrounding the violation of B.P. 22 and why is it being discussed in the article?
The case discussed in the article involves a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), which
pertains to checks issued without sufficient funds. The petitioner, Teresita Alcantara Vergara, was

Facts: accused of violating BP 22 for issuing a check that bounced due to insufficient funds. The check was

1. The petitioner, Teresita Alcantara Vergara, was charged with violating Batas Pambansa issued on December 15, 1988. The petitioner argued that she should be acquitted because she had
Blg. 22 (BP 22) for issuing a check without sufficient funds
2. The check in question was issued on December 15, 1988, and was later dishonored by the replaced the dishonored check with several other checks totaling the same amount before the
drawee bank.
information was filed. The court ruled that to hold the petitioner liable, it must be established that
3. The petitioner argued that she should be acquitted because she replaced the check with
several other checks totaling the same amount before the information was filed. she knew of the insufficiency of funds at the time the check was issued. Since it was not clearly
4. It was not clearly established when the petitioner was notified of the dishonor of the
check. established when the petitioner was notified of the dishonor, the court found that the presumption
5. The court found that the presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds did not apply
since it was not clearly established when the petitioner was notified of the dishonor. of knowledge of insufficient funds did not apply. Therefore, the petitioner's conviction was
6. The court ruled that to hold the petitioner liable, it must be established that she knew of
the insufficiency of funds at the time the check was issued. overturned. This case is being discussed in the article to highlight the importance of establishing the
7. The prosecution failed to present proof of when the petitioner received notice of non-
payment of the checks. timeline of events in determining liability under BP 22.
8. The trial court's finding on the date the demands were made and when the demand letter
was received was not clear.
9. The equipoise rule was applied, which means that when the evidence on an issue of fact is
in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party having
the burden of proof loses.
How does the equipoise rule apply to the evidence in the case, and what is its significance to the In Sec. 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), the "evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds" is

outcome? described as the making, drawing, and issuance of a check that is subsequently refused for payment

The equipoise rule is an evidentiary principle that applies when there is doubt or uncertainty on by the drawee bank due to insufficient funds or credit. This evidence of knowledge arises when the

which side the evidence preponderates. It means that if there are two or more explanations for the check is presented within ninety (90) days from its date. It creates a prima facie presumption that the

inculpatory facts and circumstances, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused person who issued the check knew about the insufficiency of funds at the time of issuance unless the

and the other consistent with their guilt, the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and issuer pays the holder the amount due or decides for payment within five (5) banking days after

is insufficient to produce a conviction. receiving notice of the dishonor.

In the case at hand, the equipoise rule is significant because it helps determine the outcome of the
In relation to the case being presented, the evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds is crucial in
case. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the evidentiary facts that establish the
determining the liability of the petitioner for violating BP 22. The court must establish beyond
prima facie presumption of knowledge of the insufficiency of funds. As a result, the presumption of
reasonable doubt that the petitioner knew about the insufficiency of funds when she issued the
guilt did not arise, and the petitioner could not be convicted under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22)
dishonored check. However, in this case, it was not clearly established when the notice of dishonor
for issuing a check with insufficient funds.
was served on the petitioner. This lack of evidence regarding the timing of the notice prevents the

The court noted that there was no clear evidence establishing when the notice of dishonor was prima facie presumption from arising, as the court cannot reckon the crucial 5-day period for

served on the petitioner. Furthermore, no proof of receipt by the petitioner of any notice of non- payment or arrangement. Therefore, without this evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds, the

payment was presented during the trial. These uncertainties in the timeline of events prevented the petitioner's conviction for violating BP 22 was overturned.

court from determining whether the petitioner had sufficient time to rectify the issue or make Why does the article suggest that penal laws should not be applied mechanically, and what

arrangements for payment within the prescribed period of five banking days, as provided by BP 22. considerations should be taken into account instead?

Without this proof, the presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds did not apply. The article suggests that penal laws should not be applied mechanically because there is a need to

consider the purpose and reason behind the law, rather than just focusing on the literal
Therefore, applying the equipoise rule in this case, where there was doubt regarding the timing of the
interpretation of the law itself. The consideration of the spirit of the law is important to ensure that
notice of dishonor, the court held that the evidence did not fulfill the test of moral certainty required
the application of the law is consistent with its intended purpose. The article emphasizes the purpose
for a conviction. As a result, the petitioner's conviction was overturned, highlighting the importance
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), which covers checks issued without sufficient funds, is to
of establishing a clear timeline of events when determining liability under BP 22.
safeguard the interest of the banking system and protect legitimate public checking account users.
What is the "evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds" described in Sec. 2 of the article, and

how does it relate to the case being presented?

Instead of applying the law mechanically, certain considerations should be considered. One purpose and reason. It argues that the debtor's criminalization in this case would not serve the ends

consideration is the burden of proof, where the prosecution has the responsibility to prove the of justice, but instead, subvert it.

evidentiary facts that establish the prima facie presumption of knowledge of the insufficiency of
Therefore, the conclusion demonstrates how the principle of justice is upheld by considering the
funds. The principle of presumption of innocence also plays a crucial role in determining the guilt of
specific circumstances of the case, which include the petitioner's actions to resolve the issue and the
the accused. Moreover, the timeline of events and the actions taken by the accused, such as deciding
purpose of the law in protecting the banking system and legitimate users of checking accounts. By
for payment, should be carefully evaluated. Other factors like the repayment of the check amount or
taking these factors into account, the conclusion reflects a balanced and just approach to the
the collection of more than the value of the dishonored check may also be taken into consideration
application of the law in this particular case.
to determine if penalizing the accused is justified. These considerations help ensure that the

application of penal laws aligns with the ends of justice and does not unjustly punish individuals.

How does the conclusion of the article reflect on the principle of justice and the purpose of the

law in this particular case?

The conclusion of the article reflects on the principle of justice and the purpose of the law in this

particular case by highlighting the importance of considering the spirit and purpose of the law when

applying it to a specific situation. The article argues that the primary function of punishment is the

protection of society against wrongdoers and that the Bouncing Checks Law was not intended to

shelter or favor individuals who manipulate and circumvent its purpose.

In this case, the petitioner, Teresita Alcantara Vergara, was accused of violating Batas Pambansa Blg.

22 (BP 22) for issuing a check with insufficient funds. However, the court found that the evidence did

not establish the prima facie presumption of knowledge of the insufficiency of funds on the part of

the petitioner. Additionally, it was revealed that the petitioner had paid a significant amount towards

the loan, which fully covered the value of the dishonored check.

The conclusion asserts that it would be unjust to penalize the petitioner for an offense that has

already been satisfied and emphasizes that the application of the law should be consistent with its