LEODEGARIO BAYANI VS PEOPLE
436 SCRA 113
FACTS:
 [August 20, 1992] Alicia Rubia visited Dolores Evangelista at the
latter’s grocery store asking to have a check berediscounted for
P55,000. The said check was drawn by Leodegario Bayani against
his account in PSBank and waspostdated to August 29, 1992.2.
 
 Rubia told Evangelista that Bayani asked her to rediscount the check
for him because he needed the money.Considering that Rubia and
Bayani were long-time customers at the store and she knew Bayani
to be a good man,Evangelista agreed to rediscount the check.3.
 
 After Rubia endorsed the check, Evangelista gave her the amount of
P55,000.00.4.
 
 [September 11, 1992] When Evangelista deposited the check in her
account with the Far East Bank & Trust Company,it was dishonored
by the drawee bank for the reason that on September 1, 1992, Bayani
closed his account with thePSBank.5.
 
 The dishonor of the check was stamped at its dorsal portion. As of
August 27, 1992, the balance of Bayanis accountwith the bank was
P2,414.96.6.
 
 Evangelista then informed Rubia of the dishonor of the check and
demanded the return of her P55,000.00. Rubiareplied that she was
only requested by Bayani to have the check rediscounted and advised
Evangelista to see him.7.
 When Evangelista talked to Bayani, she was told that Rubia
borrowed the check from him.8.
 Thereafter, Evangelista, Rubia, Bayani and his wife, Aniceta, had a
conference in the office of Atty. Emmanuel Velasco,Evangelista
’
s lawyer. Later, in the Office of the Barangay Captain Nestor Baera,
Evangelista showed Bayani aphotocopy of the dishonored check and
demanded payment thereof.9.
 Bayani and Aniceta, on one hand, and Rubia, on the other, pointed to
each other and denied liability thereon. Anicetatold Rubia that she
should be the one to pay since the P55,000.00 was with her, but the
latter insisted that the saidamount was in payment of the pieces of
jewelry Aniceta purchased from her.10.
 
 Upon Atty. Velasco’s prodding, Evangelista suggested Bayani and
Rubio to pay P25,000.00 each. Still, Bayani andRubio pointed to the
other as the one solely liable for the amount of the check. Rubia
reminded Aniceta that she wasgiven the check as payment of the
pieces of jewelry Aniceta bought from her.
ISSUE: Whether or not Bayani is guilty of violating BP 22
RULING:
Yes.
In this case, the prosecution adduced documentary evidence that when the
petitioner issued the subject check on or about August 20, 1992, 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 Evangelista’s 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.