BP 22 (Checks without sufficient funds)

AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

BP 22

Requisites of BP 22

MKS

1. The making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value

2. The knowledge of maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment

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.

It is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on demand.

Checks

How many days are required for the sufficiency of the amount in bank?

90 days from the date of issuance

Who is liable if the corporation, company, or entity made the check?

The signatories

Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds

If the drawee did not accept the check because of insufficient funds within 90 days, it will be the prima facie evidence of insufficiency of fund, unless he paid the amount within 5 banking days after receiving the notice.

They are required to state the reason explicitly of their refusal to pay the check.

Drawee

It is defined as arrangement or understanding between the person issuing the check and the bank. It is an agreement where the bank will cover the amount in check

Credit

Inherently wrong/evil

Mala in Se

It is wrong because the law stated it.

Mala Prohibita

Requisites of Estafa

1. Mens rea (Criminal Mind/Intent)

2 ways Estafa can be done

1. Abuse in confidence

2. Deceit

To be considered estafa, the fraudulent act is done _______

prior or simultaneous to the fraud

Date covered by estafa

Post-dated and issuance of check

It is given so that the drawer, issuer, or maker know that the drawee dishonored the check and gives the drawer 5 banking days to deposit

Notice of dishonor

Rimando v Spouses Aldaba

Leonora B. Rimando (petitioner) vs
Spouses Winston and Elenita Aldaba and People of the Philippines (respondents)

Facts

Si Rimando, in-entice yung mag-asawang Aldaba na mag-ivest sa kaniyang business, sabi niya stable raw ito at kikita raw sila ng 8% monthly interest. Dahil kaibigan daw nila si Rimando, pumayag yung mag-asawang Aldaba at nagbigay ng check in the amount of P500,000, as investment, si Rimando naman nagbigay ng tatlong (3) postdated checks, isang 500k, at dalawang (2) 40k, at sila ay nagpirmahan ng kontrata sa Multitel International Holding Corporation (Multitel). Noong nag-mature na yung mga cheke na ibinigay, yung mag-asawa sinubukang i-encash yung mga cheke pero tumalbog ito or dinishonor kasi wala raw sufficient funds. Nag-demand sila kay Rimando pero hindi nito binigay, kaya nag-file sila ng criminal complaint for estafa against her.

Sabi naman ni Rimando na hindi raw sila magkaibigan at wala raw siyang sariling business. Sinabi niya na ni-refer niya lang daw sila sa Multitel Investment Manager na si Jaimelyn Cabayan na nag-handle ng investment nila. Sinabi rin niya na yung in-issue niyang tatlong (3) postdated checks ay para lang ma-accommodate sila habang hinihintay yung cheke galing sa Multitel at noong nag-issue na ng cheke yung Multitel hindi raw ito tinanggap ng mag-asawa para raw si Rimando yung maging liable kung sakaling mag-fail yung investment nila.

Meanwhile, yung mag-asawang Aldaba nag-file rin ng criminal case against Rimando for violation of BP 22, in which na-acquit si Rimando on the ground of reasonable doubt, hindi raw sure if liable siya.

 

RTC Ruling

Sabi ng RTC na hindi raw guilty si Rimando sa estafa, pero civilly liable raw siya sa mag-asawa ng P500k. Wala raw kasi yung element ng deceit sabi ng RTC, fully aware raw kasi ng mag-asawa na yung i-i-invest nila ay mapupunta sa Multitel at hindi kay Rimando. Nevertheless, sinabi ng RTC na dahil sa pagbigay ni Rimando ng cheke para ma-accommodate yung mag-asawa on behalf of Multitel, magiging liable raw siya sa kanila. Aggrieved, nag-appeal si Rimando sa CA, sabi niya na yung acquittal and exoneration niya from civil liability sa BP 22 cases should have barred Spouses Aldaba from claiming civil liability from her in the estafa case.

CA Ruling

In-affirm ng CA yung Ruling ng RTC, sinabi nila na yung prosecution for violation of BP 22 is distinct, separate, and independent from a prosecution for estafa, kahit na it may involve the same parties and transaction. So, yung acquittal ni Rimando sa civil liability niya sa BP 22 cases ay hindi automatically nag-a-absolve ng civil liability niya in estafa case. Rimando moved for reconsideration, which is denied, so she filed a petition for certiorari.

 

ISSUE

Whether yung decision ng CA ay correct, na may civil liability pa rin si Rimando sa estafa case despite her acquittal and exoneration from civil liability in the BP 22 case.

 

COURT RULING

Yung petition daw ay walang merit. Sinabi ng court na yung acquittal ni Rimando sa estafa case ay hindi automatic nag-a-absolve ng civil liability niya sa mag-asawa. Kahit na raw na-acquit siya due to doubts about her guilt, she could still be held liable for any civil damages she caused.

Nakita raw ng court na yung civil liability ni Rimando ay hindi dahil sa deception sa mag-asawa, kung hindi dahil nag-act daw siya as surety for Multitel by signig the check.

Dinifferentiate rin ng court yung BP 22 and estafa. Sa BP 22 raw, yung mere issuance raw ng check na na-dishonor gives rise to the presumption of knowledge on the part of the drawer that he issued the same without sufficient funds and hence punishable. Hindi element ang deceit sa BP 22 para maging liable. Sa Estafa naman, kailangan merong deceit para maging liable rito. Yung estafa raw ay about deceiving for personal gain, a crime against public property, while yung BP 22 ay nakikita as harmful sa banking system, a crime against public interest. Estafa is mala in se, while BP 22 is mala prohibita.

Sinabi rin ng court na yung Estafa at BP 22 ay magkaibang offense even if the facts of both cases are the same, so being charged for both doesn’t violate the rule against double jeopardy. In the end, the court denied Rimando’s appeal.

GR No. 203583

Rimando v Spouses Aldaba

Victor Ting “Seng Dee” and Emily Chan-Azajar vs Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines

Victor Ting and Emily Chan-Azajar (petitioner) vs

Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines (respondents)

FACTS

From 1991 to 1992, si Juliet Ting ay nag-loan, in the aggregate amount of P2.75M galing sa private complainant na si Josefina K. Tagle para raw sa furniture business niya. As payment, nag-issue si Juliet ng 11 na post-dated checks, which upon maturity, na-dishonor kasi raw “Closed Account” daw ito or “Draw Against Insufficient Funds.” Na-violate raw ni Juliet yung BP 22. Dahil sa financial difficulties, nag-request si Juliet sa kaniyang asawa na si Victor Ting at sa kapatid nito na si Emily Chan-Azajar na sila na raw ang mag-take over ng furniture business niya, including yung mga obligations nito. Pumayag naman yung mga petitioners, at nag-issue ng 19 checks in replacement of the 11 checks na in-issue ni Juliet. Pero yung planned take-over ay hindi nangyari since yung Naga Hope Christian School, yung employer ni Emily ay hindi pumayag sa resignation nito. Since yung planned take-ober ay hindi nangyari, yung petitioner nag-request kay Juliet na i-reassume yung obligation nito sa private complainant na si Tagle by replacing the checks they had previously issued to the latter. So, pinalitan ni Juliet yung 19 checks na in-issue ng petitioner with 23 Far East Bank check in favor of Tagle. Yung mga petitioners naman nag-request kay Tagle na isauli yung 19 check na in-issue nila. Pero, instead na isauli, dineposit ni Tagle yung seven of the checks sa MetroBank kung saan na-dishonor ito for being “Drawn Against Insufficient Funds”

On the other hand, sabi naman ni Tagle na sometime in April 1993, yung mga petitioners daw nakakuha rin daw ng loan sa kaniya amounting to P950k, by issuing several post-dated checks as payment, pero noong dineposit niya raw ito sa MetroBank, na-dishonor din daw ito kasi wala raw sufficient funds. Sinabi ni Tagle na despite of verbal and written demands, yung mga petitioners ay hindi pa rin binayaran yung mga na-dishonor na checks.

Consequently, merong seven cases for violation of BP 22 yung na-file against sa mga petitioners. Noong May 27, 1993 daw yung mga petitioners daw ay ay nagtulungan, they intentionally and unlawfully wrote a check to Tagle, from Producers Bank of the Philippines, yung cheke daw ay P250k pero alam nila na hindi enough yung pera nila sa bangko to cover it when it was encash, at noong in-encash ito within 90 days, tumalbog daw ito kasi wala nga raw enough money sa account. In-inform daw ng bank yung mga petitioners pero even after getting the notice, hindi pa rin daw nila binayaran si Tagle or make arrangements to pay within 5 banking days.

RTC RULING

Yung mga petitioners ay nag-plead not guilty, and during the trial, nakita ng RTC na yung mga petitioners ay guilty for violating BP 22 in each of the seven cases, and for each count, they were sentence to suffer the penalty of 1 year imprisonment, to pay Tagle the amount of 950k and to pay the cost.

CA RULING

Nag-file ng appeal yung mga petitioners sa CA, pero ni-affirm ng court yung decision ng RTC, nag-file ng motion for reconsideration yung mga petitioners pero dineny for lack of merit. So, nag-file sila ng instant petition which is ito.

ISSUE

Sabi ng mga petitioners na yung CA raw ay nagkamali in affirming the decision of the RTC, wala raw kasing proof beyond reasonable doubt or wala raw facts creating reasonable doubt. Yung petition daw ay may merit.

COURT RULING

Sabi ng court na para masabing na-violate yung BP 22, kailangan present yung 3 elements: (1) making, drawing, and 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 there are no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such 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 drawee, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.

Pero roon sa may analysis ng evidence presented, nakita na lahat ng elements ay na-establish beyond reasonable doubt. Yung seven checks in question na in-issue ng petitioners ay beyond dispute, inamin din daw ng mga petitioner na pinirmahan nila yung checks and in-issue ito sa private complainant. So it is clear daw na yung mga petitioners ay pinirmahan at in-issue yung seven checks in question. Sabi rin sa BP 22 na if yung check ay hindi nabayaran at ni-return ng bank, it is considered a prima facie evidence na yung check ay dishonored, and in these cases, yung MetroBank return slip ay nagpakita na yung cheke ay indeed dishonored. About naman sa knowledge of insufficient funds, hindi raw sapat na nakitang tumalbog yung cheke para maging guilty sa BP 22, dapat daw na noong ginawa yung cheke, alam ng gumawa na hindi enough yung pera niya sa bangko, so to make this easier to prove raw, yung law nag-create ng presumption na if yung 1^st and 3^rd elements ay napatunayan, yung law assumes na yung 2^nd element exists unless proven otherwise. However, this presumption of knowledge only comes to pay after the issuer of the check receive a “notice of dishonor.” Binibigyan ng 5 banking days yung issuer after receiving the notice to pay the amount of the check or arrange for its payment.

To prove na yung mga petitioners ay nakatanggap ng notice of dishonor, nag-present ng copy of the demand letter allegedly sent to petitioners yung prosecution. According doon, nagpadala ng demand letter si Tagle evidenced by return card, pero hindi pa rin nagbayad yung mga petitioners.

Hindi raw na-prove ng prosecution na yung letter ay na-sent via registered mail, or that the signature on the receipt was verified, and hindi raw nila naipakitana yung demand letter ay na-send properly. Yung return card daw ay hindi enough proof, and because of this, na-acquit yung mga petitioners at yung utang na 950k ay si Juliet Ting ang magbabayad since yung cheke na in-issue ng mga petitioners ay para dapat sa obligation ni Juliet pero since hindi nag-materialize yung take-over, babalik kay Juliet yung obligation.  

GR No. 140665

Victor Ting “Seng Dee” and Emily Chan-Azajar vs Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines

Kenneth Ngo vs People of the Philippines

FACTS

Noong 1988, sa Davao, si Kenneth Ngo ay tatlong beses na nag-issue ng cheke na nagkakahalaga P75,000 in favor of Paul Gotianse in payment of an obligation kahit alam niya na insufficient yung laman ng bangko niya, and despite the notice of dishonor hindi niya pa rin siya nagbayad. Sabi ni Ngo ay hindi raw siya guilty. Based doon sa evidence na nakuha nila, si Ngo raw ay nangutang kay Gotianse na isang businessman at officer sa Northern Hill Development Corporation, and in settlement of the indebtedness, nag-issue siya ng 8 na postdated checks, which yung lima roon ay na-honor at yung tatlo naman ay tumalbog kasi insufficient na raw yung laman. Following the dishonor, nagbigay ng demand si Gotianse, pero despite that hindi pa rin binayaran ni Ngo yung tatlong cheke.

 

RTC RULING

Yung petitioner ay nag-file ng motion to dismiss which was denied and the court ruled that the petitioner had been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced to be imprisoned for 8 months, pay 75k with legal interest, 2k fine, and pay 18k as attorney’s fee 1 count per dishonored check.

 

CA RULING

Sabi ng CA na yung 3 checks had been dishonored for payment undisputedly, and instead of presenting evidence, yung petitioner nag-file ng Motion to Dismiss, which the RTC treated as Demure to Evidence without prior leave of court, so the CA decided to appeal based on the prosecution’s evidence. The CA ruled that all the elements of a violation of BP 22 had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Pero roon sa may isang check hindi, kasi wala raw nakitang written notice of dishonor or demand letter. Tinanggal din ng CA yung imprisonment and for each criminal case, ginawang 150k yung fine.

 

ISSUE

Yung accused daw ay pwede lang maging convicted sa offense based on evidence which conform to the allegation contained in the information

Kung yung RTC ay nagkamali in imposing penalties and civil liabilities in favor of a wrong party 

COURT RULING

Dineny yung petition. Sinabi ng petitioner na yung checks ay in-issue in favor of Gotianse, pero roon sa may prosecutor’s evidence na na-establish, yung actual obligation daw ay in-issue in favor of Northern Hill Development, on this basis, yung petitioner alleges that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the offense, since the checks had not been issued for a valid consideration insofar as Complainant Gotianse was concerned. Sabi naman ng court na wala raw pake yung law kung yung cheke ay para sa exact person na inutangan at kung para saan yung cheke, yung pake ng law is kung meron bang sufficient funds o wala, and even though yung checks ay hindi para kay Gotianse, yung issuance raw na iyon ay part ng deal with Northen Hill, so they were still “on account” for Northern Hill, and Ngo agreed to pay them by giving checks to Gotianse, and yung about naman sa payment sa attorney ng other side, sabi ng court ay fair lang iyon since yung case ay tumagal.

G.R. No. 155815

Kenneth Ngo vs People of the Philippines

Sonia P. Ruiz vs People of the Philippines

FACTS

Si Sonia Ruiz ay nag-loan kay Norberta Mendoza amounting to 184k, na hinati sa tatlong loans. Si Ruiz nag-issue ng United Coconut Planters Bank (UPC) check for 184k at si Mendoza naman ay dineposit ito sa PNB na na-dishonor kasi closed na raw yung account na pagkukuhanan. Ni-notify ng PNB si Mendoza of the dishonor of the check, and in a letter na pinadala ni Mendoza kay Ruiz, in-inform niya ito sa nangyari at nag-demand ng payment plus interest. Natanggap ni Ruiz yung letter and promised na magbabayad siya, pero hindi nya nagawa, kaya nag-file ng complaint si Ruiz sa kanilang Barangay Chairman, pero despite the due notice, hindi sumipot si Ruiz.

 

Inamin ni Ruiz na nagbigay siya ng cheke kay Mendoza, pero sinabi niya na ginawa niya ito with the conformity of her sister, Gina Parro, who was the owner of the UPCB account, and that this was done in the presence of Mendoza. SInabi niya rin na si Mendoza raw yung nanghingi ng cheke para may maipakita raw ito sa insurance agent nito para sa 1M na life insurance. SInabi niya rin na nag-issue lang siya ng cheke merely for accommodation purposes. Sinabihan niya raw si Mendoza na yung cheke ay hindi funded at sinabi naman daw ni Mendoza na hindi niya raw ito ie-encash or id-deposit. Nagulat na lang daw siya na dineposit ni Mendoza yung cheke.

 

Ang ruling ng Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ay guilty raw si Ruiz in violation of BP 22, at pinagbabayad ng 200k fine with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Pinagbabayad din siya ng 184k with interest.

 

Nag-appeal siya sa RTC, sinabi niya na yung BP 22 raw ay hindi nag-a-apply kung yung drawer ng cheke ay hindi yung may-ari ng account, pero in-affirm ng RTC yung decision ng MTC.

 

ISSUE

Nag-file ng petition alleging that:

o   Yung lower court ay nagkamali in dismissing the appeal of the accused when she was not the owner of the account where the check was drawn.

o   Nagkamali raw yung lower court when they dismissed the petitioner’s appeal na sinabihan niya si Mendoza na yung account ay closed na at hindi funded yung cheke, which hindi tinanggap as valid defense.

 

RULING

Sabi ng court na yung BP 22 covers any check that bounces, regardless of ownership. Yung issuance raw ng check yung punishable kasi dini-discourage raw ng law yung circulation ng worthless checks. And contrary to her claim, hindi raw talaga niya sinabihan si Mendoza na yung kapatid niya yung may-ari ng account. The court ruled to deny the petition and to affirm the decision of RTC.  

G.R. No. 160893

Sonia P. Ruiz vs People of the Philippines

Ma. Rosario P. Campos vs People of the Philippines

FACTS

Si Ma. Rosario Campos ay nag-loan, payable on installments, mula sa First Women’s Credit Corporation (FWCC) na nagkakahalaga ng 50k. Nag-issue siya ng several postdated checks in favor of FWCC para pambayad. Yung 14 rito ay drawn against her Current Account however were dishonored when presented for payment. Yung reason was “closed account” na raw ito, and after she failed to satisfy her outstanding obligation with FWCC despite demand, kinasuhan siya ng violation sa BP 22 before the Metropolitan Trial Court. Hindi siya dumalo sa hearing so nag-render ng decision yung MeTC which she was convicted of 14 counts of violations of BP 22, and was sentenced to suffer 6 months of imprisonment for each violation and to pay the sum of P46,666.62 representing the total value of the checks plus legal interest from date of default until full payment.

 

Nag-appeal si Campos sa RTC but the RTC affirm the decision of MeTC. She filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied for lack of merit. Campos then appealed to CA, but it also affirmed the ruling of RTC.

 

ISSUE

1.    Whether yung demand letter na pinada through registered mails is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of BP 22 as to knowledge of the fact of the dishonor of the subject checks.

2.    Whether yung lack of information about the dishonor and the subsequent payment arrangement ni Campos constitute of good faith.

 

COURT RULING

Sabi Campos na yung notice raw na pinadala via registered email ay hindi niya natanggap. Ang sabi naman ng court na in-admit daw ni Campos na natanggap niya yung notice through her statements regarding her efforts to settle with FWCC, hindi rin daw niya napatunayan na meron siyang ginawang arrangement para makapagbayad, at yung hindi niya raw pagsipot sa hearing ay nag-waive sa right niya to present evidence, and the court found no reason to reverse the CA’s decision. So the petition was denied and the court affirmed Campos’ conviction.

G.R. No. 187401

Ma. Rosario P. Campos vs People of the Philippines

Ariel T. Lim vs People of the Philippines

FACTS

Si Ariel Lim ay nag-issue ng 2 Bank of Commerce checks kay Willie Castor as campaign donations noong 1998 elections amounting to P100k. Si Castor ay ginamit yung cheke pambayad ng mga printing materials, but due to delayed delivery, sinabihan ni Castor si Lim na mag-issue ng “Stop Payment” order on the checks. So yung mga cheke ay na-dishonor due to the ”Stop Payment” order. So yung private complainant na si Magna Badiee ay nagpadala ng demand letters kay Lim, who then issued a replacement check which was encashed by Badiee. Despite this, kinasuhan pa rin si Lim six months after he paid the amount of the bounced checks.

 

Nakita ng MeTC na si Lim ay guilty of two counts of BP 22 violations. Lim appealed to RTC which modified the decision but affirmed his guilt in one count. Lim then appeald to CA which upheld the RTC’s decision. So, Lim petitioned to the SC.

 

ISSUE

Sabi ni Lim na nabayaran niya na yung amount of the dishonored checks before the information was filled in court

He relied on the precedent set in Griffith v. CA to argue for his acquittal

RULING

Sinabi ng SC na yung petition ay meritorious and relied on the precedent set in Griffith. So roon sa case, kapag daw yung amount of the dishonored check ay nabayarn before the filling of the information, the accused may be acquitted. Sabi ng court na binayaran lang daw ni Lim yung amount of the bounced checks two months after receiving demand letters and before the filling of the information. Yung differentiation din daw na ginawa ng CA between the present case and Griffith was founds unjustified. So the decision of CA was reversed and set aside, and petitioner Ariel was acquitted.

G.R. No. 190834

Ariel T. Lim vs People of the Philippines

Peter Nierras vs. Hon. Auxencio C. Dacuycuy

FACTS

This case involves a petition of certiorari with preliminary injunction filed by Peter Nierra to annul the resolution of Judge Dacuycuy in 9 criminal cases for estafa. Yung petition na ito is to quash the charges on the grounds of double jeopardy, kasi raw meron na raw estafa tapos BP 22 pa.

 

In both cases, sinabi ni Nierras na hindi raw siya guilty, however, after entering his plea in the estafa cases, he moved to withdraw his plea of not guilty and filed a motion to quash, which was denied by Judged Dacuycuy. Sabi ni Judge Dacuycuy na yung elements daw sa estafa under the Revised Penal Code ay distinct from BP 22. Sabi naman ni Nierrasna siya ay mas-subject to double jeopardy since the elements of estafa were present in BP 22 cases as well, pero nag-disagree yung court, saying na yung dalawa ay magkaiba:

1.    Yung deceit and damage are essential daw sa estafa pero hindi required sa BP 22.

2.    Yung drawer daw ng na-dishonor na check ay pwede ma-convict under BP 22 even if the check was issued for a pre-existing obligation, which is not the case under estafa.

3.    May specific and different penalties din ang ini-impose for each offense.

4.    Yung estafa raw ay crime against property while yung BP 22 ay crime against public interest and the banking system.

5.    Yung estafa raw ay mala in se (inherently wrong/evil) while yung BP 22 ay Mala Prohibita (prohibited by law)

 

RULING

Dinimiss ng court yung petition for certiorari for lack of merit. Sinabi rin nila na yung pag-file ng two sets of information do not give rise to double jeopardy kasi yung single criminal act may result in multiple offenses.   

G.R. Nos. 59568-76

Peter Nierras vs. Hon. Auxencio C. Dacuycuy