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 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.

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.