Case Digest: MARCIANO TAN v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK 552 SCRA (2008)

MARCIANO TAN v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK 552 SCRA (2008)

Full payment at the time of its presentment or during the five-day grace period could exonerate one from criminal liability under B.P. Blg. 22. Petitioner Marciano Tan, executive vice president of Master Tours and Travel (MTT) applied for Usance Letter of Credit (LC) with respondent Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) to import four tourist buses with a total value of US430, 000.00 from Daewoo Corporation of Korea (Daewoo) which, as agreed upon by the parties, amounted to P 10 Million Pesos. MTT issued five post dated checks. Consequently, PCIB then issued the Usance LC. The tourist buses were delivered to MTT covered by Trust Receipts with PCIB as entruster and MTT as entrustee. All of the six checks issued by MTT to PCIB were cleared except that last one. PCIB soon demanded the settlement of the dishonored check. MTT thus issued 14 post dated checks payable every fifteen days. Of the 14 checks, only the first five were honored. MTT, having suffered financial losses availed of the provision of the Trust Receipt. Under said provision, MTT surrendered the buses to PCIB which the latter accepted. PCIB sent MTT a letter demanding payment of MTT‘s remaining obligation. In response, MTT claimed that its obligation has been extinguished since the buses were already delivered to PCIB. PCIB subsequently filed criminal complaint against Tan for violation of B. P. Blg. 22 before Regional Trial Court of Makati. The RTC convicted Tan of all nine charges. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC‘s decision. Hence, Tan filed Petition for Review with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not Tan may be held liable for violation of B.P. 22 despite MTT‘s delivery of buses in favor of PCIB

HELD:

While issuing of a bouncing check is malum prohibitum, the prosecution is not excused from its responsibility of proving beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense. The prosecution must prove that the accused knew, at the time of issuance, that he does not have sufficient funds or credit for the full payment of the check upon its presentment. The element of “knowledge” involves a state of mind that obviously would be difficult to establish, hence, the statute creates a prima facie presumption of knowledge on the insufficiency of funds or credit coincidental with the attendance of the two other elements. In order to create such presumption, it must be shown that the drawer or maker received a notice of dishonor and, within five banking days thereafter, failed to satisfy the amount of the check or arrange for its payment. The above-quoted provision creates a presumption juris tantum that the second element prima facie exists when the first and third elements of the offense are present. The presumption is not conclusive, however, as it may be rebutted by full payment. If the maker or drawer pays, or makes arrangement with the drawee bank for the payment of the amount due within the five-day period from notice of the dishonor, he or she may no longer be indicted for such violation. It is a complete defense that would lie regardless of the strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution. In essence, the law affords the drawer or maker the opportunity to avert prosecution by performing some acts that would operate to preempt the criminal action, which opportunity serves to mitigate the harshness of the law in its application. It is a general rule that only a full payment at the time of its presentment or during the five-day grace period could exonerate one from criminal liability under B.P. Blg. 22 and that subsequent payments can only affect the civil, but not the criminal, liability. In the present case, PCIB already exacted its proverbial pound of flesh by receiving and keeping in possession the four buses-trust properties surrendered by Tan in about mid 1991 and March 1992 pursuant to Section 7 of the Trust Receipts Law, the estimated value of which was “about P6.6 million”. It thus appears that the total amount of the dishonored checks — P1,785,855.75, — the undisputed claim of petitioner of a mistaken agreement to pay the exchange differential (which the same checks represented) aside, was more than fully satisfied prior to the transmittal and receipt of the July 9, 1992 letter of demand. In keeping with jurisprudence, the Court then considers such payment of the dishonored checks to have obliterated the criminal liability of Tan.

Share this:

Leave a Reply