GR No 141066

Evangeline Ladonga vs People of the Philippines

GR No 141066        February 17, 2005

Facts:

The spouses Ladonga were charged to have conspired and mutually helped one another in violating the provisions of BP Blg 22 in issuing a UCPB check on their account, knowing fully well that the same does not have sufficient funds. The said check was delivered to Alfredo Oculam to guarantee the loan availed of by the spouses. Apparently, when Oculam encashed the check, the same was dishonored by the Bank as the account of the spouses has already been closed.

This is where Evangeline Ladonga contended that she was not a signatory of the checks and had no participation in the issuance thereof, thus acquitting her from the judgment against her husband. She argued that the RTC erred in finding her criminally liable for conspiring with her husband as the principle of conspiracy is inapplicable to BP Blg 22. The CA affirmed RTC decision, hence the appeal.

Issue:

     WON Evangeline Ladonga is guilty of conspiracy with her husband in committing a violation against BP Blg 22.

Held:

          

          Principle of conspiracy is applicable to BP Blg 22 because the RPC provides that its provisions shall be supplementary to special laws unless the latter provides the contrary. Apparently, BP Blg 22 does not prohibit the applicability of the suppletory character of the provisions of RPC.

          Article 10 of RPC provides that, offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.

          The first clause should be understood to mean only that the special penal laws are controlling with regard to offenses therein specifically punished. The second clause states that the code shall be supplementary to special laws, unless the elater should specifically provide the contrary.

          However, the conviction of Evangeline must be set aside as conspiracy was not established. Article 8 of the RPC provides that a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. The overt act or acts of the accused may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan.

GR No L-68589-90

Paulino Chang vs Intermediate Appellate Court

GR No L-68589-90  December 29, 1986

Facts:

            Chang was charged against violation of Bouncing Checks Law and for Estafa under Article 315 of the RPC. It was alleged that Chang, by means of false manifestation and fraudulent representations as a businessman specializing in the importation of machineries and farm implements assured Reaport of the investments should he so desire, succeeded in inducing Reaport to invest. Chang issued and delivered to Reaport BPI check with the assurance that the same was well-funded, knowing fully well that the same was not. The said check was dishonored when Reaport proceeded to encash the same.

            RTC found Chang guilty and the IAC affirmed the RTC decision.

Issue:

            WON Chang was guilty of violation against Bouncing Checks Law

Held:

            There is no question that the check issued by Chang bounced for insufficiency of funds, so that he should be guilty of violation of BP Blg 22. The drawee bank’s statement of accounts respecting that of appellant would indicate that the amount of the account issued with the check had insufficient balance to fund the same.

            The defense that the check was issued as a gambling check for money lost at gambling, hence, illegal and void from the very beginning lacks credence. Chang issues the check in payment of an obligation to return the money he got from Reaport, including profit. It was not by way of guaranteeing Reaport’s investment. It was the inducement that convinced Reaport of a sure return of his money plus the profit promised. The gambling debt theory is characterized with circumstances doubly hard to believe.

            Hence, Chang was found guilty of the violation against Bouncing Checks Law.

GR No 200090

Erlinda San Mateo vs People of the Philippines

GR No 200090         March 6, 2013

Facts:

     San Mateo was charged with the violation of BP Blg 22 when she issued postdated Metrobank checks to Sehwani as a payment for the assorted yarns that she ordered. Whenever a check matured, however, San Mateo would either call or write Sehwani requesting him not to deposit the checks due to lack of sufficient funds. Unfortunately, San Mateo continued to fail to settle account. When Sehwani deposited the check, the same was dishonored for insufficiency of funds.

         MeTC found San Mateo guilty of violation of BP Blg 22. RTC affirmed the MeTC decision. CA affirmed RTC decision and reiterated that all the elements for violation of BP 22 had been sufficiently proven.

Issue:

         WON San Mateo is guilty of violation against BP Blg 22

Held:

          No, San Mateo is not guilty of violation against BP Blg 22.

         SC stated that to be liable for violation of BP Blg 22, the following essential elements must be present: 1) the making, drawing, 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 e does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for payment of the 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.

       In this case, the third element is present and have been adequately established. With respect to the first element, the Court gives full faith and credit to the findings of the lower courts that the checks were issued for value. The second element was not sufficiently established. BP Blg 22 creates a presumption that the issuer of the check was aware of the insufficiency of funds when he issued a check and the bank dishonored it. This presumption, however, arises only after it is proved that the issuer received a written notice of dishonor and that, within 5 days from receipt thereof, failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangements for its payment.

        Since there is insufficient proof that San Mateo actually received the notice of dishonor, the presumption that she knew of the insufficiency of her funds cannot arise. For this reason, the Court cannot convict her with moral certainty of violation of BP 22.

GR No 87416

Cecilio De Villa vs Court of Appeals

GR No 87416            April 8, 1991

Facts:

            De Villa was charged before the RTC of NCR with a violation of BP Blg 22, allegedly committed as he issued a Depositors Trust Company Check to Roberto Lorayez, whilst knowing fully well that he had no sufficient funds or credit which drawee bank for payment of such check in full upon its presentment. In his petition to dismiss, one of the grounds raised by de Villa was that the check involved was payable in dollars, hence, the obligation created is null and void pursuant to RA No 529.

            RTC denied the motion to dismiss for lack of merit. CA also denied the motion for reconsideration filed by de Villa.

Issue:

            WON BP Blg 22 violation is applicable for checks drawn against current accounts in foreign currency.

Held:

            Under BP Blg 22, foreign checks, provided they are either drawn and issued in the Philippines though payable outside thereof, or made payable and dishonored in the Philippines though drawn and issued outside thereof, are within the coverage of said law. The law likewise applied to checks drawn against current accounts in foreign currency.

            It is undisputed that the check in question was executed and delivered by de Villa to Lorayez in Makati, Metro Manila. However, de Villa argues that the check in question was drawn against his dollar account with a foreign bank, and is therefore not covered by the BP Blg 22. But it will be noted that the law does not distinguish the currency involved in the case.

            Hence, Bouncing Checks Law is applicable to checks drawn against current accounts in foreign currency. It is a cardinal principle in statutory construction that where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Where the law does not make any exception, courts may not except something unless compelling reasons exist to justify it.

G.R. No. 190834

Ariel T. Lim v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 190834

Facts:

Lim issued two checks payable to cash to Baddie for the printing materials. Due to the delay in the delivery of the said materials, Lim issued a “Stop Payment” order for the two checks. However, the checks were drawn against insufficient funds. Lim was not able to arrange payments with Baddie within five banking days after receiving notice of the said error. Although, Lim was able to give the full payment for the materials after a lapse of more than one month.

Issue:

Whether or not Lim has committed estafa.

Held:

No. It must be noted that Lim has already paid in full the amount of the dishonored checks six months before the information was filed. In doing so, he was exonerated from the imposition of penalties for violation of BP bilang 22. It is a consistent rule that penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. Since penal laws should not be applied mechanically, the Court must determine whether the application of the penal law is consistent with the purpose and reason of the law.