Case Digest: J. L. RECUERDO v . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS 395 SCRA 117 (2003)

JOY LEE RECUERDO v . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS 395 SCRA 117 (2003)

Yolanda Floro sold a loose diamond stone valued at P420,000.00 to Joy Lee Recuerdo. As payment for the diamond, Recuerdo gave P40,000 as downpayment and issued 9 postdated checks. When Floro tried to deposit eight checks, only three were cleared and the other five were dishonored due to the closure of Recuerdo‘s account. Recuerdo promised to convert the checks into cash but she welshed on it A demand letter was sent to Recuerdo but she still failed to comply with her obligation. This prompted Floro to file at the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) five informations against Recuerdo for violation of B.P. 22. Recuerdo was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of B.P. 22 and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 30 days for each count and to restitute the amount of P200,000 to Floro. The decision was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and later on, by the Court of Appeals (CA).

ISSUE:

Whether or not Recuerdo is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of B.P. 22

HELD:

Recuerdo contends that since banks are not damaged by the presentment of dishonored checks as they impose a penalty for each, only creditors/payees are unduly favored by the law; that the law ―is in essence a resurrected form of 19th century imprisonment for debt‘ since the drawer is coerced to pay his debt on threat of imprisonment even if his failure to pay does not arise from malice or fraud or from any criminal intent to cause damage; and that the law is a bill of attainder as it does not leave much room for judicial determination, the guilt of the accused having already been decided by the legislature. These matters subject of Recuerdo‘s contention have long been settled in the landmark case of Lozano v. Martinez where the Court upheld the constitutionality of B. P. 22: the gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order. The contention that B. P. 22 is a bill of attainder, one which inflicts punishment without trial and the essence of which is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt, fails. For under B. P. 22, every element of the crime is still to be proven before the trial court to warrant a conviction for violation thereof. Recuerdo argues that as no bank representative testified as to ―whether the questioned checks were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds (sic), such element was not clearly and convincingly proven, hence, the trial court failed to uphold her right to presumption of innocence when she was convicted based on the sole testimony of Yolanda. Yolanda‘s testimony that when she deposited the checks to her depository bank they were dishonored due to ―Account Closed sufficed. In fact, even Recuerdo‘s counsel during trial admitted the dishonor, and on that ground. In fine, the affirmance of Recuerdo‘s conviction is in order. In the case at bar, the Court notes that no proof, nay allegation, was proffered that Recuerdo was not a first time offender. Considering this and the correctness of the case, it would best serve the interests of justice if Recuerdo is just fined to enable her to continue her dental practice so as not to deprive her of her income, thus insuring the early settlement of the civil aspect of the case, not to mention the FINE.