Bank Date Issued Date of Check Amount Check No. Security Bank September 15, 1998 January 15, 1999 P 3,125.00 0000045804 -do- September 15, 1998 January 15, 1999 125,000.00 0000045805 -do- September 20, 1998 January 20, 1999 2,500.00 0000045809 -do- September 20, 1998 January 20, 1999 100,000.00 0000045810 -do- September 30, 1998 td>January 30, 19995,000.00 0000045814 -do- September 30, 1998 January 30, 1999 200,000.00 0000045815 -do- October 3, 1998 February 3, 1999 2,500.00 0000045875 -do- October 3, 1998 February 3, 1999 100,000.00 0000045876 -do- November 17, 1998 February17, 1999 5,000.00 0000046061 -do- November 17, 1998 March 17, 1999 5,000.00 0000046062 -do- November 17, 1998 March 17, 1999 200,000.00 0000046063 -do- November 19, 1998 January 19, 1999 2,500.00 0000046065 -do- November 19, 1998 February19, 1999 2,500.00 0000046066 -do- November 19, 1998 March 19, 1999 2,500.00 0000046067 -do- November 19, 1998 March 19, 1999 100,000.00 0000046068 -do- November 20, 1998 January 20, 1999 10,000.00 0000046070 -do- November 20, 1998 February 20, 1999 10,000.00 0000046071 -do- November 20, 1998 March 20, 1999 10,000.00 0000046072 -do- November 20, 1998 March 20, 1999 10,000.00 0000046073 -do- November 30, 1998 January 30, 1999 2,500.00 0000046075 -do- November 30, 1998 February 28, 1999 2,500.00 0000046076 -do- November 30, 1998 March 30, 1999 2,500.00 0000046077 -do- November 30, 1998 March 30, 1999 100,000.00 0000046078
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the accused FLORENCIO I. CABRERA, JR., and EUMELIA R. MITRA are hereby found guilty of the offense of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 and are hereby ORDERED to respectively pay the following fines for each violation and with subsidiary imprisonment in all cases, in case of insolvency:1. Criminal Case No. 43637 - P200,000.00
2. Criminal Case No. 43640 - P100,000.00
3. Criminal Case No. 43648 - P100,000.00
4. Criminal Case No. 43700 - P125,000.00
5. Criminal Case No. 43702 - P200,000.00
6. Criminal Case No. 43704 - P100,000.00
7. Criminal Case No. 43706 - P100,000.00
Said accused, nevertheless, are adjudged civilly liable and are ordered to pay, in solidum, private complainant Felicisimo S. Tarcelo the amount of NINE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P925,000.000).
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE ELEMENTS OF VIOLATION OF BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 22 MUST BE PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AS AGAINST THE CORPORATION WHO OWNS THE CURRENT ACCOUNT WHERE THE SUBJECT CHECKS WERE DRAWN BEFORE LIABILITY ATTACHES TO THE SIGNATORIES.
2. WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE OF DISHONOR AND DEMAND TO PAY TO THE PETITIONER AND THE LATE FLORENCIO CABRERA, JR.
SECTION 1. Checks Without Sufficient Funds. -- Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.
Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.
SECTION 2. Evidence of Knowledge of Insufficient Funds. -- The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.
The defense postulated that there was no demand served upon the accused, said denial deserves scant consideration. Positive allegation of the prosecution that a demand letter was served upon the accused prevails over the denial made by the accused. Though, having denied that there was no demand letter served on April 10, 2000, however, the prosecution positively alleged and proved that the questioned demand letter was served upon the accused on April 10, 2000, that was at the time they were attending Court hearing before Branch I of this Court. In fact, the prosecution had submitted a Certification issued by the other Branch of this Court certifying the fact that the accused were present during the April 10, 2010 hearing. With such straightforward and categorical testimony of the witness, the Court believes that the prosecution has achieved what was dismally lacking in the three (3) cases of Betty King, Victor Ting and Caras - evidence of the receipt by the accused of the demand letter sent to her. The Court accepts the prosecution's narrative that the accused refused to sign the same to evidence their receipt thereof. To require the prosecution to produce the signature of the accused on said demand letter would be imposing an undue hardship on it. As well, actual receipt acknowledgment is not and has never been required of the prosecution either by law or jurisprudence.12 [emphasis supplied]
- a person makes or draws and issues a check to apply on account or for value;
- the person who makes or draws and issues the check knows at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the full payment of the check upon its presentment; and
- the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment. 13
1 Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes with Associate Justice Isaias P. Dican and Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison concurring.
2 Complaint-Affidavits, Rollo, pp. 109-115.
3 Id. at 116-129.
4 Id. at 130-134.
5 Id. at 143.
6 Id. at 75-105.
7 Lozano v. Martinez, 230 Phil. 406, 428 (1986).
8 Rosario v. Co, G.R. No. 133608, August 26, 2008, 563 SCRA 239, 253.
9 Rollo, p. 47.
10 337 Phil. 153, 160 (1997).
11 American Home Assurance Company v. Chua, 368 Phil. 555, 569 (1999).
12 Rollo, p. 133.
13 Rigor v. People, 485 Phil. 125, 139 (2004).
14 In Gosiaco v. Ching, G.R. No. 173807, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 471, 483, we held an accused corporate officer free from civil liability for the corporate debt after the lower court acquitted the accused of criminal liability under BP 22. Note that this is a totally different case from the present case as the issue here is both criminal and civil liability.