ISSUANCE OF GUARANTEE CHECKS
WHICH WAS DISHONORED IN VIOLATION
OF THE LAW AND ITS PURPOSE
Lazaro
VS
CA
et al., GR 105461
The intention of the framers of BP 22 is to make a mere act of issuing a worthless check malum prohibitum. In prosecutions for violation of BP 22, therefore, prejudice or damage is not prerequisite for conviction.
The agreement surrounding the issuance of the checks need not be first locked into, since the law has provided that the mere issuance of any kind of check; regardless of the intent of the parties, i.e., whether the check is intended merely to serve as guarantee or deposit, but which checks is subsequently dishonored, makes the person who issued the check liable.
CAN A PERSON BE HELD CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR
ISSUING A CHECK WITH SUFFICIENT
FUNDS FOR VIOLATION OF BP 22?
Yes. Paragraph 2 of Section 1 of BP 22 provides:
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 90 days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason, it is dishonored by the drawee bank.
RULE ON RENDERING UNJUST
JUDGMENT, IGNORANCE, ETC.
BY A JUDGE
Gutierrez
VS
Pallatao
July 8, 1998
In the case of De la Cruz vs. Concepcion this Court declared:
“Mere errors in the appreciation of evidence, unless so gross and patent as to produce an inference of ignorance or bad faith, or of knowing rendition of an unjust decision, are irrelevant and immaterial in an administrative proceeding against him. No one, called upon to try facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice, can be infallible in his judgment. All that is expected of him is that he follow the rules prescribed to ensure a fair and impartial hearing, assess the different factors that emerge therefrom and bear on the issues presented, and on the basis of the conclusions he finds established, with only his conscience and knowledge of the law to guide him, adjudicate the case accordingly.”
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ESTAFA
AND VIOLATION OF BP 22
Uy
VS
Court of Appeals
GR 119000, July 28, 1997
In the crime of estafa, deceit and damage are essential elements of the offense and have to be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. For violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, on the other hand, the elements of deceit and damage are neither essential nor required. Rather, the elements of B.P. Blg. 22 are (a) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or for value; (b) the maker, drawer or issuer knows at the time of issuance 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; and, (c) 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 valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment
JURISDICTION IN
BP 22 CASES
In respect of the Bouncing checks case, the offense also appears to be continuing in nature. It is true that the offense is committed by the very fact of its performance (Colmenares vs. Villar, No. L-27126, May 29, 1970, 33 SCRA 186); and that the Bouncing Checks Law penalizes not only the fact of dishonor of a check but also the act of making or drawing and issuance of a bouncing check (People vs. Hon. Veridiano, II, No. L-62243, 132 SCRA 523). The case, therefore, could have been filed also in Bulacan. As held in Que vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 75217-18, September 11, 1987 “the determinative factor (in determining venue) is the place of the issuance of the check”. However, it is likewise true that knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds, which is an essential ingredient of the offense is by itself a continuing eventuality, whether the accused be within one territory or another (People vs. Hon. Manzanilla, G.R. Nos. 66003-04, December 11, 1987). Accordingly, jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense also lies in the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga. (Now, MTC, MCTC or MeTC)
And, as pointed out in the Manzanilla case, jurisdiction or venue is determined by the allegation in the Information, which are controlling (Arches vs. Bellosillo, 81 Phil. 190, cited in Tuzon vs. Cruz, No. L-27410, August 28, 1975, 66 SCRA 235). The Information filed herein specifically alleges that the crime was committed in San Fernando Pampanga and therefore within the jurisdiction of the Court below.
This ruling was reiterated in the case of Lim vs. Rodrigo, 167 SCRA 487, where it was held:
Besides, it was held in People v. Hon. Manzanilla, supra, that as “violation of the bad checks act is committed when one ‘makes or draws and issues any check [sic] to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time issue that he does not have sufficient funds’ or having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank . . . 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,” “knowledge” is an essential ingredient of the offense charge. As defined by the statute, knowledge, is, by itself, a continuing eventuality, whether the accused be within one territory or another. This being the case, the Regional Trial Court (now, MeTC) of Baguio City has jurisdiction to try Criminal Case No. 2089-R (688).
Moreover, we ruled in the same case of People v. Hon. Manzanilla, reiterated in People vs. Grospe, supra, that jurisdiction or venue is determined by the allegations in the information. The allegation in the information under consideration that the offense was committed in Baguio City is therefore controlling and sufficient to vest jurisdiction upon the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City (MeTC).
In the case at bench it appears that the three (3) checks were deposited in Lucena City. As to the second error wherein the petitioner asserted that the checks were issued “as a guarantee only for the feeds delivered to him” and that there is no estafa if a check is issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation, the Court of Appeals pointed out that the petitioner obviously failed to distinguish a violation of B.P. Blg. 22 from estafa under Article 315 (2) [d] of the Revised Penal Code. It further stressed that B.P. Blg. 22 applies even in cases where dishonored checks were issued as a guarantee or for deposit only, for it makes no distinction as to whether the checks within its contemplation are issued in payment of an obligation or merely to guarantee the said obligation and the history of its enactment evinces the definite legislative intent to make the prohibition all-embracing. (Ibasco vs CA, 9/5/96)
