Case Title: Ruth D. Bautista v.

Susan Aloña

Procedural Posture: This is a petition for certiorari filed by Ruth D. Bautista against the Court of
Appeals' resolution that dismissed her petition for review and questioned the resolution of the
Office of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP) regarding her case.

Legal Dispute: The main legal dispute revolves around whether the drawer of a check that is
dishonored due to insufficient funds can be prosecuted under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22),
also known as The Bouncing Checks Law, even if the check is presented for payment after ninety
(90) days from its due date.
Facts: Ruth D. Bautista issued a Metrobank check dated 8 May 1998 for P1,500,000.00 to Susan
Aloña. On 20 October 1998, Aloña presented the check for payment, but it was dishonored due to
insufficient funds. On 16 March 1999, Aloña filed a complaint against Bautista for violation of BP 22.
Bautista argued that her criminal liability should be extinguished because the check was presented
166 days after its due date and, therefore, no longer punishable under BP 22. Reliefs Prayed For:
Bautista sought to reverse the resolutions of the ORSP and the Court of Appeals that upheld the
filing of a criminal case against her for BP 22 violation.

Issues:

• Whether the prosecutor's resolution to file a criminal case against Bautista for BP 22
violation was proper.
• Whether the 90-day presentment period is an element of the BP 22 offense.

Holding/Reasoning:
• The Court clarified that preliminary investigation conducted by a prosecutor is not a quasi-
judicial function, and the prosecutor's decisions on the filing of criminal complaints are not
appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. Bautista's remedy, in the absence of grave
abuse of discretion, was to present her defense during the trial of the case.
• The Court explained that the 90-day presentment period is not an element of the BP 22
offense. Section 2 of BP 22 establishes a prima facie presumption of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds when a dishonored check is presented within 90 days. However, this
presumption does not preclude the presentation of other evidence that may prove such
knowledge. The failure to present the check within 90 days only affects the presumption of
knowledge but does not absolve the accused from criminal liability if other evidence
establishes the requisite knowledge.
Resulting Legal Rule(s):

• Preliminary investigation by a prosecutor is not a quasi-judicial function, and the

prosecutor's decisions on the filing of criminal complaints are not appealable to the Court of
Appeals under Rule 43.
• The 90-day presentment period is not an element of the BP 22 offense. The presumption of
knowledge of insufficiency of funds arises if a dishonored check is presented within 90 days,
but other evidence may also establish such knowledge if the check is presented beyond the
90-day period.
Disposition: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' resolution, which upheld the filing of a
criminal case against Bautista for BP 22 violation. Costs were imposed on Bautista.