GR No 190834

Ariel Lim vs People of the Philippines

GR No 190834         November 26, 2014

Facts:

            Lim was charged with a violation against the Bouncing Checks Law when he issued Bank of Commerce checks. The checks were given to Castor as his campaign donation to the latter’s candidacy. Castor ordered the delivery of printing materials and used Lim’s check as payment. Claiming that the printing materials were delivered too late, Castor instructed Lim to issue a “Stop Payment” order for the checks issued. Thus, when the same was presented, the same were dishonored by the bank because of said order and when the bank officer was presented on the witness stand, the said checks were drawn against insufficient funds. However, when a demand letter and subpoena was delivered to Lim, he issued a replacement check which was successfully encashed.

            MeTC rendered decision finding Lim guilty of violation of BP Blg 22. RTC affirmed with modifications and CA affirmed in toto the RTC decision.

Issue:

            WON Lim was guilty of violation against BP Blg 22

Held:

            SC finds the petition meritorious. Considering that the money value of the checks issued by Lim has already been effectively paid two years before the information against him were filed, Court finds merit in this petition. Lim could not be validly and justly convicted or sentenced for violation against BP Blg 22.

          Generally, only the full payment of the value of the dishonored check during the five-day grace period would exculpate the accused from criminal liability under BP Blg 22, but based on jurisprudence, the Court ruled that albeit beyond the grace period but two years prior to the institution of the criminal case, the payment collected from the proceeds of the foreclosure and auction sale of the petitioner’s impounded properties justified the acquittal of the petitioner.

         Thus, although payment of the value of the bounced check, if made beyond the 5-day period provided for BP Blg 22 would normally not extinguish criminal liability, the existence of extraordinary cases before the Court where, even if all the elements of the crime or offense are present, the conviction of the accused would prove to be abhorrent to society’s sense of justice. The fact that the issuer of the check had already paid the value of the dishonored check after having received the subpoena should have forestalled the filing of the Information in court.

            The spirit of the law which, for BP Blg 22, is the protection of the credibility and stability of the banking system, would not be served by penalizing people who have evidently made amends for their mistakes and made restitution for damages even before charges have been filed against them. In effect, the payment of the checks before the filing of the Information has already attained the purpose of the law.