FRANCISCO M. BAX,
Petitioner, -
versus - PEOPLE OF THE Respondents. |
G.R. No. 149858
Present: pUNO, C.J., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA, and GARCIA,
JJ. Promulgated: |
x
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
DECISION
|
|
|
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: |
|
|
|
|
Challenged in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari[1]
are the Decision[2]
of the Court of Appeals dated December 19, 2000 and its Resolution dated
September 5, 2001 in CA-G.R. CR No. 23356 affirming in toto the Decision dated December 14, 1998 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 70, Pasig City declaring petitioner guilty of nine (9)
counts of violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang
22 (B.P. 22), otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law.
On
The
Information in Criminal Case No. 14354 reads:
That on or about the 13th day of
March 1994 in the Municipality of Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make or draw and issue to Ilyon
Industrial Corporation to apply on account or for value the check described
below:
Check
No. : AGRO94438
Drawn
against : United Coconut Planters Bank
In
the amount : P47,250.00
Dated/Postdated :
Payable to : Ilyon Industrial Corp. rep. by Benedict Tan
said accused well knowing that at the time of
issue he did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for
the payment in full of the face amount of such check upon its presentment,
which check could have been dishonored for insufficiency of funds had not the
accused, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to “Stop Payment”, and despite
receipt of notice of such dishonor, the accused failed to pay said payee the
face amount of the said check or made arrangement for full payment thereof
within five (5) banking days after receiving notice.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.
Except as to the numbers and dates of the other nine checks
issued by petitioner, and the reason for their dishonor (drawn against
insufficient funds), the Informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 14355-14363 and
the above Information are similarly worded.
The
facts are:
Sometime
in October 1993, petitioner, for and in behalf of Vachman Industries, Inc.
(VACHMAN), purchased 80 metric tons of chemical compounds, known as caustic soda
flakes, from Ilyon Industrial Corporation (ILYON), respondent.
On P464,750.00 in favor of ILYON.
Upon
presentment of the checks to the United Coconut Planters Bank for payment, they
were dishonored for being drawn against insufficient funds. Despite ILYON’s demand, petitioner failed to
make good the bounced checks for the reason that he has been encountering financial
problems. As a result, ILYON caused the
filing of ten (10) Informations against petitioner.
After
hearing or on
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the
Court hereby renders judgment finding the accused, Francisco Bax, “GUILTY” of
the crime of Violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, (10) counts, and
accordingly sentences him to suffer imprisonment of six (6) months in each case
and to pay the offended party the sum of P464,750.00, the amount of all
the ten (10) checks and to pay the cost.
SO
ORDERED.
On appeal, the RTC, Branch 70,
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
Decision of the Court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED with the following
MODIFICATIONS:
(a) accused is ACQUITTED in Criminal case No.
14354;
(b) the sentence imposed on accused in Criminal
Case Nos. 14355 to 14363 of six (6) months imprisonment for each is hereby
increased to ONE (1) YEAR in each case; and
(c) the total amount of indemnity to be paid by
the accused to the complainant-corporation is PHP 417,500.00.
SO ORDERED.
On
appeal,[4] the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
No. 23356 rendered its Decision on
Hence
the instant petition.
The basic
issue is whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of petitioner by
evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
The
Solicitor General contends that the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming
the RTC Joint Decision sustaining that of the MeTC because all the elements of
violation of B.P. 22 are present in each case.
Petitioner, on the other hand, maintains that since he did not receive a
written notice of dishonor, not all the elements of the offense have been
established by the prosecution. Accordingly, he should be acquitted.
We agree with petitioner.
It is
settled that factual findings of the trial court are accorded great weight,
even finality on appeal, except when it has failed to appreciate certain facts
and circumstances which, if taken into account, would materially affect the
result of the case. This
exception is present here.[5]
Section 1 of B.P. 22
provides:
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.
Thus, the
prosecution must prove the following essential elements of the offense:
(1) the
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 drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop
payment.[6]
We find that the prosecution
failed to prove the second element.
To hold petitioner liable for violation of B.P. 22, it is
not enough that the issued check was subsequently dishonored for insufficiency
of funds. It must be shown beyond
reasonable doubt that he knew of the insufficiency of funds at the time the
check was issued.[7] Hence, the law provides that he must be
notified of the dishonor, thus:
SEC. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds.
– The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by
the drawee bank 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.[8]
While it
is true that ILYON, through its president, Benedict Tan, asked petitioner to
pay the dishonored checks, however, such kind of notice is not the one required
by B.P. 22.
Under B.P.
22, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused issued a check that
was subsequently dishonored. It must also establish that the accused was actually
notified that the check was dishonored, and that he or she failed, within five
banking days from receipt of the notice, to pay the holder of the check the
amount due thereon or to make arrangement for its payment. Absent proof that
the accused received such notice, a prosecution for violation of the Bouncing
Checks Law cannot prosper.[9]
In Domagsang v. Court of Appeals,[10]
we held that the notice of dishonor of a check to the maker must be in writing. A mere oral notice to the drawer or maker of
the dishonor of his check is not enough, thus:
While,
indeed, Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 does not state that the notice of dishonor be
in writing, taken in conjunction, however, with Section 3 of the law. i.e., “that where there are no
sufficient funds in or credit with such drawee bank, such fact shall always be explicitly stated in the notice
of dishonor or refusal,” a mere oral
notice or demand to pay would appear to be insufficient for conviction under
the law. The Court is convinced that
both the spirit and letter of the Bouncing Checks Law would require for the act
to be punished thereunder not only that the accused issued a check that is
dishonored, but that likewise the accused has actually been notified in writing of the fact of
dishonor. The consistent rule is that
penal statutes have to be construed strictly against the State and liberally in
favor of the accused. (Emphasis supplied)
Since petitioner did not receive a written notice of dishonor
of the checks, obviously, there is no way of determining when the 5-day period
prescribed in Section 2 of B.P. 22 would start and end. Thus, the prima facie evidence of petitioner’s
knowledge of the insufficiency of funds or credit at the time he issued the
checks did not arise.[11]
We thus
find that the prosecution failed to prove by evidence beyond reasonable doubt that
petitioner is guilty of violations of B.P. 22.
However,
petitioner should pay the face value of the nine (9) dishonored checks plus
legal interest. It is well settled that
the civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal where such acquittal is
based on lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt, since only preponderance of
evidence is required in civil cases.[12]
We
however modify the award of petitioner’s civil liability to ILYON from P417,500.00
to P425,250.00. In Criminal
Case No. 14354, petitioner was acquitted by the RTC since the reason for
the dishonor was his “stop payment order”
to the drawee bank to enable VACHMAN to reconcile its accounts with ILYON. Hence, only the face value of the remaining nine
(9) checks should be included in the computation of petitioner’s civil
liability. Each check has a face value
of P47,250.00 which, if we multiply by nine, yields P425,250.00.
WHEREFORE, we REVERSE the Decision
of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner Francisco M. Bax is acquitted in
Criminal Cases Nos. 14355 to 14363 for violations of B.P. 22 for failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered, however, to pay the offended
party, ILYON, the face value of the nine (9) checks in the total amount of P425,250.00
with 12% interest per annum from the filing of the Informations until fully
paid.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
Chief Justice
[1]
Filed under Rule 45, 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, as amended.
[2]
Penned by Associate Justice Mercedes
Gozo-Dadole (retired) and concurred in by Associate Justice Ma. Alicia
Austria-Martinez (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Hilarion L.
Aquino (retired).
[3] Presided by Judge Luis D. Martinez.
[4] From the Decision of the RTC in Criminal Cases Nos. 14355 to 14363.
[5]
Vergara
v. People, G.R. No. 160328,
[6]
Marigomen
v. People, G.R. No. 153451,
[7]
Vergara
v. People, supra at 501.
[8]
King
v. People, G.R. No. 131540,
[9]
[10]
G.R. No. 139292,
[11]
Danao
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122353,
[12]
Rico
v. People, G.R. No. 137191,