TARCELO WERE DRAWN BEFORE LIABILITY ATTACHES TO THE
SIGNATORIES. [G.R. NO. 191404. July 5, 2010] RULING: MENDOZA, J.: The Court finds Itself unable to agree with Mitras FACTS: posture. The third paragraph of Section 1 of BP 22 reads: Felicismo invested his money in Lucky Nine Credit "Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, Corporation. As was the practice, the corporation thru its the person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of officers, Eumelia and Florencio, treasurer and president, such drawer shall be liable under this Act." This provision respectively, of the corporation, issued to him several post-dated recognizes the reality that a corporation can only act through its checks representing the principal amount plus interest of the officers. Hence, its wording is unequivocal and mandatory that amounts he invested. When presented for payment, the checks the person who actually signed the corporate check shall be held were dishonoured for reason account closed. Demand was liable for a violation of BP 22. This provision does not contain made by Felicisimo to both Eumelia and Florencio for them pay any condition, qualification or limitation. the face value of the checks, hence Felicismo filed a case for To reiterate the elements of a violation of BP 22 as violation of BP 22 against the accused. The lower court contained in the above-quoted provision, a violation exists convicted them, affirmed by the RTC and the Court of Appeals. where: Only Eumelia elevated her appeal to the Supreme Court as Florencio died in the interim. 1. a person makes or draws and issues a check to apply on account or for value; In her appeal, Eumelia anchors her defense on the theory that the corporation should first be held liable before they, the 2. the person who makes or draws and issues the check signatories can be held personally liable. Also, no notice of knows at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient dishonour was received by them. funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the full payment of the check upon its presentment; and ISSUE: 3. the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee WHETHER OR NOT THE ELEMENTS OF bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have VIOLATION OF BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 22 MUST been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, BE PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AS without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop AGAINST THE CORPORATION WHO OWNS THE payment. CURRENT ACCOUNT WHERE THE SUBJECT CHECKS There is no dispute that Mitra signed the checks and that ISSUE: the bank dishonored the checks because the account had been WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF closed. Notice of dishonor was properly given, but Mitra failed APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE to pay the checks or make arrangements for their payment within CONVICTION OF PETITIONER BY THE TRIAL COURT five days from notice. With all the above elements duly proven, FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF BATAS PAMBANSA Mitra cannot escape the civil and criminal liabilities that BP 22 BLG. 22 NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE PROSECUTION imposes for its breach. MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE CHECK WAS ISSUED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION. LEODEGARIO BAYANI vs. PEOPLE OF THE RULING: PHILIPPINES The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the [G.R. No. 154947. August 11, 2004] act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is not the non- CALLEJO, SR., J.: payment of an obligation which the law punishes. FACTS: Futile is the petitioners contention that the prosecution Alicia Rubia arrived at the grocery store of Dolores failed to prove the crime charged. For the accused to be guilty Evangelista in Candelaria, Quezon, and asked the latter to of violation of Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22, the prosecution is rediscount Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) Check No. mandated to prove the essential elements thereof, to wit: 054936 in the amount of P55,000.00. The check was drawn by 1. That a person makes or draws and issues any check. Leodegario Bayani against his account with the PSBank. After Rubia endorsed the check, Evangelista gave her the amount of 2. That the check is made or drawn and issued to apply P55,000.00. However, when Evangelista deposited the check in on account or for value. her account with the Far East Bank & Trust Company it was 3. That the person who makes or draws and issues the dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason that Bayani closed check knows at the time of issue that he does not have his account with the PSBank. sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the The petitioner averred that the prosecution failed to payment of such check in full upon its presentment. adduce evidence that he affixed his signature on the check, or 4. That the check is subsequently dishonored by the received from Rubia the amount of P55,000.00, thus negating drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or his guilt of the crime charged. would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment. In this case, the prosecution adduced documentary evidence that when the petitioner issued the subject check, the balance of his account with the drawee bank was only P2,414.96. During the conference in the office of Atty. Emmanuel Velasco, Evangelista showed to the petitioner and his wife a photocopy of the subject check, with the notation at its dorsal portion that it was dishonored for the reason account closed. Despite Evangelistas demands, the petitioner refused to pay the amount of the check and, with his wife, pointed to Rubia as the one liable for the amount. The collective evidence of the prosecution points to the fact that at the time the petitioner drew and issued the check, he knew that the residue of the funds in his account with the drawee bank was insufficient to pay the amount of the check.