SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 129900. October 2, 2001]

The e2idence for the prosecution tends to sho! that on or about Debruary 1<& 1(()& up to ;ay 61& 1(() at $ue%on City& accused *ane Caras obtained from complainant Chu 9an# T- Atien%a on installment 2arious #ift chec/s and purchase orders from Eni!ide Sales and in payment thereof& the accused issued to the complainant the follo!in# chec/s dra!n a#ainst ,hilippine Commercial 'an/3 Chec/ NoDate 651<5() Amount

JANE CARAS y SOLITARIO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF A !"# EO LE OF THE HILI INES, respondents. $ECISION %UISU&'ING, J.(

EALS

81::77 , 17&1)+-88 81::76 , 17&A)+-88 81:A): , 17&1)+-88 81::7+ , 17&1)+-88 81:AA7 , )6&+88-88 81::7A , 17&1)+-88 81::<( , 17&1)+-88 81::(8 , 17&1)+-88 81:AA6 , )6&+88-88 81:AA) , )7&778-88 81::A< , :&8A)-+8 81::<< , 17&1)+-88

65865()

This is an appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals[1 !hich affirmed the decision of the "e#ional Trial Court of $ue%on City& 'ranch ()& findin# petitioner *ane Caras y Solitario #uilty of 1+ counts of 'atas ,ambansa 'l#- )) .'ouncin# Chec/s 0a!1 2iolationsThe facts of the case as found by the Court of Appeals are as follo!s3 *ANE S- CA"AS has appealed from the 4ud#ment of con2iction in fifteen .1+1 related cases of Violation of the 'ouncin# Chec/s 0a!- The first Information .doc/eted as Criminal Case No- $5(65777)81 a#ainst her reads as follo!s3 That on or about the +th day of *anuary 1(() in $ue%on City& ,hilippines& the said accused did then and there !ilfully& unla!fully and feloniously ma/e or dra! and issue to Chu 9an# T- Atien%a to apply on account or for 2alue ,CI 'an/& Common!ealth A2e- 'ranch Chec/ No- 81::77 dated ;arch 1<& 1(() payable to the order of CAS= in the amount of ,17&1)+-88 ,hilippine Currency& said accused !ell /no!in# that at the time of issue she did not ha2e sufficient funds in or credit !ith the dra!ee ban/ for payment of such chec/ in full upon its presentment !hich chec/ !hen presented for payment !as subse>uently dishonored by the dra!ee ban/ for Account Closed and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor& said accused failed to pay said Chu 9an# T- Atien%a the amount of said chec/ or to ma/e arran#ement for full payment of the same !ithin fi2e .+1 ban/in# days after recei2in# said noticeIn Criminal Case Nos- $5(65777)1 to $5(6577767& the informations !ere similarly !orded as abo2e& e?cept for the respecti2e amounts in2ol2ed& dates& numbers of chec/s and dates of commission@hen arrai#ned on Au#ust 1A& 1((6& accused Caras pleaded Bnot #uiltyC- Thereafter& trial proceeded-

65865()

75865()

751<5()

751<5()

651<5()

75865()

758)5()

651<5()

651<5()

65865()

81:AA+ , )6&+88-88 81::A: , :&8A)-+8 81::A( ,+78&61<-6+

+58)5()

65865()

7- In Crim- Case No- $5(65777)6 F the Court finds accused *ane Caras GEI0T9 beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of 'atas ,ambansa 'l#- )) and is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of four .71 months and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of ,17&1)+-88 and to pay the costsH +- In Crim- Case No- $5(65777)7 F the Court finds accused *ane Caras GEI0T9 beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of 'atas ,ambansa 'l#- )) and is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of si? .A1 months and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of ,)6&+88-88 and to pay the costsH A- In Crim- Case No- $5(65777)+ F the Court finds accused *ane Caras GEI0T9 beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of 'atas ,ambansa 'l#- )) and is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of four .71 months and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of ,17&1)+-88 and to pay the costsH :- In Crim- Case No- $5(65777)A F the Court finds accused *ane Caras GEI0T9 beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of 'atas ,ambansa 'l#- )) and is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of four .71 months and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of ,17&1)+-88 and to pay the costsH <- In Crim- Case No- $5(65777): F the Court finds accused *ane Caras GEI0T9 beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of 'atas ,ambansa 'l#- )) and is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of four .71 months and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of ,17&1)+-88 and to pay the costsH (- In Crim- Case No- $5(65777)< F the Court finds accused *ane Caras GEI0T9 beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of 'atas ,ambansa 'l#- )) and is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of si? .A1 months and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of ,)6&+88-88 and to pay the costsH 18- In Crim- Case No- $5(65777)( F the Court finds accused *ane Caras GEI0T9 beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of 'atas ,ambansa 'l#- )) and is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of si? .A1 months and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of ,)7&778-88 and to pay the costsH 11- In Crim- Case No- $5(6577768 F the Court finds accused *ane Caras GEI0T9 beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of 'atas ,ambansa 'l#- )) and is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of t!o .)1 months and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of ,:&8A)-+8 and to pay the costsH

65615()

@hen the chec/s !ere presented for deposit or encashment& they !ere all dishonored for the reason BAccount ClosedC- Despite repeated 2erbal and !ritten demands made on her to replace the dishonored chec/s !ith cash& she failed and refused to do soThe accused admitted that she issued the fifteen .1+1 chec/s- She claimed& ho!e2er& that they !ere #i2en to ;ari2ic Na/pil& [) alle#ed sister of the complainant& as B#uarantee deposit&C that is& for e2ery #ift chec/ and purchase order #i2en to the accused& she issued personal chec/s to #uarantee its payment- The chec/s are not to be encashed nor deposited !ith any ban/- @ith re#ard to Chec/ No- 81::A( in the amount of ,+78&61A-6+ .E?h- BOC1& accused claimed that she entrusted the said chec/ to ;ari2ic Na/pil in blan/& !ith her si#nature but !ithout any amount or numerical fi#ures on the face of the chec/On ;ay 16& 1((7& the Court a quo rendered its 4ud#ment !ith the follo!in# disposition3 @=E"EDO"E& *ud#ment is hereby rendered as follo!s3 1- In Crim- Case No- $5(65777)8 F the Court finds accused *ane Caras GEI0T9 beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of 'atas ,ambansa 'l#- )) and is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of four .71 months and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of ,17&1)+-88 and to pay the costsH )- In Crim- Case No- $5(65777)1 F the Court finds accused *ane Caras GEI0T9 beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of 'atas ,ambans 'l#- )) and is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of four .71 months and indemnify the offended party in the amount of ,17&A)+-88 and to pay the costsH 6- In Crim- Case No- $5(65777)) F the Court finds accused *ane Caras GEI0T9 beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of 'atas ,ambansa 'l#- )) and is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of four .71 months and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of ,17&1)+-88 and to pay the costsH

1)- In Crim- Case No- $5(6577761 F the Court finds accused *ane Caras GEI0T9 beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of 'atas ,ambansa 'l#- )) and is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of four .71 months and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of ,17&1)+-88 and to pay the costsH 16- In Crim- Case No- $5(657776) F the Court finds accused *ane Caras GEI0T9 beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of 'atas ,ambansa 'l#- )) and is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of si? .A1 months and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of ,)6&+88-88 and to pay the costsH 17- In Crim- Case No- $5(6577766 F the Court finds accused *ane Caras GEI0T9 beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of 'atas ,ambansa 'l#- )) and is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of t!o .)1 months and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of ,:&8A)-+8 and to pay the costsH 1+- In Crim- Case No- $5(6577767 F the Court finds accused *ane Caras GEI0T9 beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of 'atas ,ambansa 'l#- )) and is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of ei#ht .<1 months and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of ,+78&61<-6+ and to pay the costsSO O"DE"ED-[6 On *une 16& 1((7& petitioner filed a ;otion for "econsideration !hich !as denied by the trial court in an Order dated September ))& 1((7- ,etitioner then filed an appeal !ith the Court of Appeals !hich rendered 4ud#ment as follo!s3 @=E"EDO"E& the appealed decision is hereby ADDI";ED in toto- Costs a#ainst appellantSO O"DE"ED[7

III IN CO;,0ETE09 IGNO"ING T=E 0ACI OD ,E"SONA0IT9 OD T=E ,"IVATE CO;,0AINANT TO INITIATE AND ,"OSECETE T=ESE CASESH IV IN NOT AC$EITTING T=E ACCESED DO" 0ACI OD CONSIDE"ATION .AS TO ,CI' C=ECI NO 81::A( DO" ,+78&61<-6+1 AND DO" 0ACI OD INO@0EDGE OD T=E INSEDDICIENC9 OD =E" DENDSH V IN CO;,0ETE09 IGNO"ING T=AT T=E COE"T A $EO =AD NO TE""ITO"IA0 *E"ISDICTION OVE" T=E ODDENSE- [+ ,etitioner admits ha2in# issued the chec/s sub4ect of this case& sa2e for one& but insists that she issued them merely to #uarantee payment of her obli#ation to a certain ;ari2ic Na/pilH they !ere not supposed to ha2e been deposited in a ban/- ,etitioner also denies ha2in# transacted !ith pri2ate complainant Chu 9an# T- Atien%a& and asserts that the latter did not ha2e personality to prosecute this case,etitioner ar#ues that one of the chec/s& ,CI' chec/ no- 81::A(& !as issued in blan/- She claims that this chec/ !as issued !ithout consideration and that the element of the crime that the chec/ must be issued for 2alue is lac/in# as re#ards this particular chec/- Also in relation to her fourth assi#nment of error& petitioner asserts that she !as not properly notified of the dishonor of her chec/s- She maintains that the prosecution failed to sho! that she recei2ed the notices of dishonor purportedly sent to her- She points out that no return card nor ac/no!led#ment receipt for the first demand letter !as presented in e2idence- @hile there !as a return card attached to the second demand letter& this !as not mar/ed nor offered in e2idence& and hence must be i#nored-[A ,etitioner also assails the 4urisdiction of the $ue%on City "TC o2er the case& maintainin# that there is no e2idence sho!in# that the chec/s !ere issued and deli2ered in $ue%on City- Neither is there e2idence as to !here the pri2ate complainant recei2ed the chec/s& and !hether or not she recei2ed them from the accused herselfDor its part& the Office of the Solicitor General ar#ues that '-,- )) does not ma/e any distinction re#ardin# the purpose for !hich the chec/s !ere issued- Thus& it is of no moment e2en if it !ere true that& as claimed by accused& the chec/s she issued !ere meant only to #uarantee payment of her obli#ation- Criminal liability attaches !hether the chec/s !ere issued in payment of an obli#ation or to #uarantee payment of that obli#ation[: There is 2iolation of '-,- )) !hen a !orthless chec/ is issued and is subse>uently dishonored by the dra!ee ban/- The OSG also points out that accused did not deny ha2in# issued the sub4ect chec/sAfter a careful consideration of the records and the submissions of the parties& !e find that the resolution of this petition hin#es on the issue of !hether the prosecution e2idence suffices to con2ict the accused& herein petitioner *ane Caras- The elements of the offense under Section 1 of '-,'l#- )) are3 .11 dra!in# and issuance of any chec/ to apply on account or

On April 11& 1((:& petitioner filed a ;otion for "econsideration !hich !as denied by the Court of Appeals in a "esolution dated *uly 1+& 1((:=ence& this petition& in !hich petitioner alle#es that the Court of Appeals erred3 I IN NOT "ESO0VING T=E ISSEES '"OEG=T OET IN T=E ;OTION DO" "ECONSIDE"ATIONH

II IN CO;,0ETE09 IGNO"ING T=E ,E",OSE OD T=E ISSEANCE OD T=E C=ECISH

for 2alueH .)1 /no!led#e by the ma/er& dra!er& or issuer that at the time of issue he did not ha2e sufficient funds in or credit !ith the dra!ee ban/ for the payment of such chec/ in full upon presentmentH and .61 said chec/ is subse>uently dishonored by the dra!ee ban/ for insufficiency of funds or credit& or !ould ha2e been dishonored for the same reason had not the dra!er& !ithout any 2alid reason& ordered the ban/ to stop payment- [< @hat the la! punishes is the issuance of a bouncin# chec/ and not the purpose for !hich the chec/ !as issued& nor the terms and conditions of its issuance- There are matters !e need to pursue& because& as said inLlamado v. Court of Appeals& [( Jto determine the reasons for !hich chec/s are issued& or the terms and conditions for their issuance& !ill #reatly erode the faith the public reposes in the stability and commercial 2alue of chec/s as currency substitutes& and brin# about ha2oc in trade and in ban/in# communitiesThus& petitionerKs contention that she issued the chec/s sub4ect of this case merely to #uarantee payment of her obli#ation is hardly a defense- The mere act of issuin# a !orthless chec/ is malum prohibitum and is punishable under '-,- ))& pro2ided the other elements of the offense are properly pro2edIn particular& !e note that the la! pro2ides for a prima facie rule of e2idence- Ino!led#e of insufficiency of funds in or credit !ith the ban/ is presumed from the act of ma/in#& dra!in#& and issuin# a chec/ payment of !hich is refused by the dra!ee ban/ for insufficiency of funds !hen presented !ithin (8 days from the date of issue- =o!e2er& this presumption may be rebutted by the accused5petitioner- Such presumption does not hold !hen the ma/er or dra!er pays or ma/es arran#ements for the payment of the chec/ !ithin fi2e ban/in# days after recei2in# notice that such chec/ had been dishonored- [18 Thus& it is essential for the ma/er or dra!er to be notified of the dishonor of her chec/& so she could pay the 2alue thereof or ma/e arran#ements for its payment !ithin the period prescribed by la!,etitioner denies ha2in# recei2ed any notice that the chec/s she issued had been dishonored by the dra!ee ban/- After carefully #oin# o2er the records of this case& !e find that indeed no clear e2idence is sho!n on !hether petitioner !as informed that her chec/s had been dishonoredThe notice of dishonor& as held in Lao v. Court of Appeals &[11 may be sent by the offended party or the dra!ee ban/- Complainant testified that she hired la!yers to prepare and send the demand letters- [1) The prosecution presented and mar/ed in e2idence t!o letters demandin# payment !hich !ere purportedly sent to petitioner- =o!e2er& the prosecution presented no e2idence that !ould establish petitionerKs actual receipt of any demand letter !hich could ha2e ser2ed as notice to petitioner- None of the letters contained an indication that they !ere actually recei2ed by petitioner- No ac/no!led#ement receipt nor return card for the first and second demand letters !ere offered in

e2idence- Such omission and ne#lect on the part of the prosecution is fatal to its causeThere is testimony on record that pri2ate complainant as/ed petitioner to pay the 2alue of the chec/s- =o!e2er& there is no mention of !hen the demand to pay !as made& !hether before or after the chec/s !ere dishonored by the dra!ee ban/- [16 It is possible that payment !as re>uested before the chec/s !ere deposited& since& as testified to by petitioner& the usual arran#ement !as that she issues chec/s and then she replaces them !ith cash- The chec/s !ere not deposited but !ere& instead& returned to her-[17 =o!e2er& accordin# to the prosecution& petitioner started ha2in# problems !ith her cash flo! resultin# to her inability to replace the chec/s she issued !ith cash- 'ut such problems leadin# to illi>uidity of petitioner are not material elements of the crime- @hat is pertinent here is prior notice to the dra!er that her chec/s ha2e been dishonored& so that !ithin fi2e ban/in# days from receipt of such notice she could pay the chec/ fully or ma/e arran#ements for such paymentE2en the testimony of ;anuel ,anuelos& branch mana#er of ,CI 'an/ !here petitioner maintained her chec/in# account& indicates that the ban/ also failed to send notice to petitioner for her to pay the 2alue of the chec/s or ma/e arran#ements for their payment !ithin fi2e days from the dishonor of the said chec/s- Note his testimony on cross5e?amination3 $3 Did you #i2e the accused notice !ithin fi2e .+1 ban/in# days !ithin !hich to ma/e arran#ement !ith the ban/ !ithin ninety .(81 days re#ardin# the bounced chec/sL

Atty- ,alaMa3 9our =onor& that is already ans!ered by the !itnessAtty- Dela Torre3 No& that is not the ans!er& !hat I !ant is that----Court3 "eform Atty- Dela Torre3 Is it not your procedure that !hen a chec/ bounced& you #i2e notice to the ---A3 $3 A3 $3 It is not our procedureIt is not your procedureL No- In fact !e do it 2erbally---Is it not standard operatin# procedure in your ban/ to #i2e customers notice !ithin fi2e .+1 ban/in# days to ma/e arran#ement !ith the ban/ !ithin ninety .(81 days re#ardin# the bounced chec/L

A3 $3 A3

No& that is not our procedure9ou do not follo! that procedureL @e do not- That is not our standard procedure- [1+

,etitioner on the !itness stand denied recei2in# any notice from the ban/$3 ;adam @itness& all these chec/s !ere deposited !ith the ban/ in one day- @ill you please tell this =onorable Court !hen the first chec/ bounced by the reason of DAID& !ere you notified by your depositary ban/ !hich is ,CI' !ithin fi2e .+1 ban/in# days to ma/e arran#ement !ithin---days re#ardin# that bouncin# chec/sL No& sir& I did not recei2e any notice- [1A

Absent a clear sho!in# that petitioner actually /ne! of the dishonor of her chec/s and !as #i2en the opportunity to ma/e arran#ements for payment as pro2ided for under the la!& !e cannot !ith moral certainty con2ict her of 2iolation of '-,- 'l#- ))- The failure of the prosecution to pro2e that petitioner !as #i2en the re>uisite notice of dishonor is a clear #round for her ac>uittal- [1( Discussion of the other assi#ned errors need no lon#er detain us=o!e2er& it should be stressed that this decision in no !ay pre4udices the ci2il obli#ations& if any& that she mi#ht ha2e incurred by reason of her transactions !ith pri2ate complainant- Dor !e note that petitioner does not deny ha2in# issued the sub4ect chec/s- [)8 And !hile no criminal liability could be imposed in this case for lac/ of sufficient proof of the offense char#ed& a fair distinction should be made as to ci2il aspects of the transaction bet!een the parties6HEREFORE& the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals affirmin# that of the "e#ional Trial Court& is "EVE"SED and SET ASIDE- ,etitioner *ane Caras is AC$EITTED on the #round that her #uilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt- This decision is !ithout pre4udice to the filin# of an appropriate ci2il case& if !arranted& to determine the ci2il aspects of petitionerKs transactionsNo pronouncement as to costsSO OR$ERE$. Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, r., ., concur-

A3

The absence of proof that petitioner recei2ed any notice informin# her of the fact that her chec/s !ere dishonored and #i2in# her fi2e ban/in# days !ithin !hich to ma/e arran#ements for payment of the said chec/s pre2ents the application of the disputable presumption that she had /no!led#e of the insufficiency of her funds at the time she issued the chec/s- Absent such presumption& the burden shifts to the prosecution to pro2e that petitioner had /no!led#e of the insufficiency of her funds !hen she issued the said chec/s& other!ise& she cannot be held liable under the la!-[1: E2en more crucial& the absence of any notice of dishonor personally sent to and recei2ed by the accused is a 2iolation of the petitionerKs ri#ht to due process- This is in effect our rulin# in Lao vs. Court of Appeals& [1< !here !e held3 It has been obser2ed that the State& under this statute& actually offers the 2iolator Ba compromise by allo!in# him to perform some act !hich operates to preempt the criminal action& and if he opts to perform it the action is abatedC- This !as also compared Bto certain la!sC.citin# E-O18:& <6 O-G- No- :& p- +:A .Debruary 1A& 1(<:1& and E-O- 1))& <( O-G- No77& p- A67( .No2ember 1& 1((61 allo!in# ille#al possessors of firearms a certain period of time to surrender the ille#ally possessed firearms to the Go2ernment& !ithout incurrin# any criminal liabilityC .citin# Nitafan& Da2id G-& Notes and Comments on the 'ouncin# Chec/s 0a! .', 'l#- ))1& pp1)151))1- In this li#ht& the full payment of the amount appearin# in the chec/ !ithin fi2e ban/in# days from notice of dishonor is a Bcomplete defenseC .citin# Na2arro 2s- Court of Appeals& )67 SC"A A6(1- T)e !b*e"ce o+ ! "ot,ce o+ #,*)o"or "ece**!r,-y #e.r,/e* !" !cc0*e# !" o..ort0",ty to .rec-0#e ! cr,1,"!- .ro*ec0t,o". Accor#,"2-y, .roce#0r!- #0e .roce** c-e!r-y e"3o,"* t)!t ! "ot,ce o+ #,*)o"or be !ct0!--y *er/e# o" .et,t,o"er. et,t,o"er )!* ! r,2)t to #e1!"# 4 !"# t)e b!*,c .o*t0-!te* o+ +!,r"e** re50,re 4 t)!t t)e "ot,ce o+ #,*)o"or be !ct0!--y *e"t to !"# rece,/e# by )er to !++or# )er t)e o..ort0",ty to !/ert .ro*ec0t,o" 0"#er '. . '-2. 22. .Enderscorin# and emphasis supplied-1

[1 [) [6 [7 [+ [A [: [<

CA !ollo& pp- 18)511+Also spelled as BNapilC and BNarpilC in the records"TC "ecords& pp- 11)511ACA !ollo& p- 11+!ollo& pp- 1<51(!ollo& p-16ACitin# "ue v. #eople& G-"- No- 05:+)1:51<& 1+7 SC"A 1A8& 1A7 .1(<:1-

$ieva, r. v. Court of Appeals& G-"- Nos- (+:(A5(:& ):) SC"A 1& 1) .1((:1[( G-"- No- ((86)& ):8 SC"A 7)6& 761 .1((:1[18

'-,- 'l#- ))& Section ) pro2ides3

SEC- )- %vidence of &no'led(e of insufficient funds. 55 The ma/in#& dra!in# and issuance of a chec/ payment of !hich is refused by the dra!ee because of insufficient funds in or credit !ith such ban/& !hen presented !ithin ninety .(81 days from the date of the chec/& shall

be prima facie e2idence of /no!led#e of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such ma/er or dra!er pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon& or ma/es arran#ements for payment in full by the dra!ee of such chec/ !ithin fi2e .+1 ban/in# days after recei2in# notice that such chec/ has not been paid by the dra!ee[11 [1) [16 [17 [1+ [1A [1: [1< [1( [)8

G-"- No- 11(1:<& ):7 SC"A +:)& +() .1((:1TSN& Chu 9an# Atien%a& October +& 1((6& pp- 1:5)8TSN& *ane Caras& December 1A& 1((6& pp- 16517)d- at +TSN& ;anuel ,anuelos& October )A& 1((6& pp- 18511TSN& *ane Caras& December 1A& 1((6& p- ()dos vs. Court of Appeals, G-"- No- 118:<)& )(A SC"A 1(7& )18 .1((<1 . G-"- No- 11(1:<& ):7 SC"A +:)& +(7 .1((:1See *in( v. #eople& G-"- No- 161+78& 61( SC"A A+7& A:8 .1(((1-

See TSN& Chu 9an# Atien%a& October +& 1((6& p- 1AH TSN& *ane Caras& December 1A& 1((6& p- 11-