THIRD DIVISION
JOY LEE RECUERDO,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
133036
January 22, 2003
-versus-
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CARPIO-MORALES,
J.: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Before us for Review
is the July 16, 1997 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No.
20577
affirming that rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 150,
Makati City which in turn affirmed that of the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC) of Makati City, Branch 67 convicting Joy Lee Recuerdo
(petitioner)
for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law) on 5
counts.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
From the evidence of
the prosecution, the following facts are established:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sometime in the first
week of December 1993, Yolanda Floro (Yolanda) who is engaged in
jewelry
business sold a 3-karat loose diamond stone valued at P420,000.00 to
petitioner
who gave a downpayment of P40,000.00. In settlement of the balance of
the
purchase price, petitioner issued 9 postdated checks, 8 of which in the
amount of P40,000.00, and 1 in the amount of P20,000.00, all drawn
against
her account at the Prudential Bank.[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When Yolanda deposited
8 of the 10 checks to her depository bank, Liberty Savings and Loan
Association,
only 3, those dated December 25, 1993, January 25, 1994, and February
25,
1994, were cleared. The remaining 5 were dishonored due to the closure
of petitioner’s account.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Yolanda thus went to
petitioner’s dental clinic and advised her to change the dishonored
checks
to cash. Petitioner promised alright but she welshed on it.[3]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A demand letter[4]
was thereupon sent to petitioner for her to settle her obligation but
she
failed to heed the same,[5]
hence, the filing of 5 informations[6]
against her for violation of B. P. 22 at the Makati MeTC, the
accusatory
portion of the first of which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That sometime in the
first week of December, 1993, in the Municipality of Makati, Metro
Manila,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named
accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make
out, drawn (sic) and issue to YOLANDA G. FLORO to apply on account or
for
value the check described below:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Check No. - 008789chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Drawn Against - Prudential
Bankchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the Amount of -
P40,000.00chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Postdated/dated - July
25, 1994chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Payable to - Cashchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Said accused well knowing
that at the time of issue thereof, said account did not have sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment in full of the
face amount of such check upon its presentment, which check when
presented
for payment within ninety (90) days from the date thereof was
subsequently
dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason "ACCOUNT CLOSED" and
despite
receipt of notice of such dishonor, the accused failed to pay said
payee
the face amount of said check or to make arrangement for full payment
within
five (5) banking days after receiving said notice.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Except for the check
numbers and dates of maturity, the four other informations are
similarly
worded.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After trial, Branch
67 of the Makati MeTC convicted petitioner in a Joint Decision[7]
the dispositive portion of which reads:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Wherefore, in view
of the foregoing, the court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 on five (5) counts and
therefore
sentences the accused to suffer an imprisonment of 30 days for each
count
and to restitute the amount of P 200,000.00 to Miss Yolanda G. Floro,
which
is the total amount of the five (5) checks, and to pay her also the
amount
of P20,000.00 as damages to compensate the payment of attorney’s fees.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As stated early on,
the RTC, on appeal, affirmed the decision of the MeTC.[9]
And the Court of Appeals[10]
affirmed that of the RTC.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chan robles virtual law library
In the petition for
review on certiorari at bar, petitioner proffers as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"1.
Petitioner
was convicted by an invalid law which is Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for
being
an unconstitutional law.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2.
Petitioner
was denied her constitutional right to due process for failure of the
courts
a quo to uphold her presumption of innocence and for convicting her
even
if the prosecution evidence does not prove her guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. The
findings of fact of the courts a quo, primarily the Court of Appeals,
are
based on surmises, conjectures and speculations.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. The
Court of Appeals was biased against petitioner when it denied the
petition
moto propio (sic) without the comment of the Office of the Solicitor
General."[11]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner 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;[12]
and that the law is a bill of attainder[13]
as it does not leave much room for judicial determination, the guilt of
the accused having already been decided by the legislature.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
These matters subject
of petitioner’s contention have long been settled in the landmark case
of Lozano v. Martinez[15]
where this Court upheld the constitutionality of B. P. 22:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.[16]
mphasis supplied)
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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,[17]
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.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Reinforcing her thesis,
petitioner cites the speech made by now Vice-President Teofisto
Guingona
delivered before the Philippine Bar Association wherein he stressed the
need to review the law since it has not prevented the proliferation of
bouncing checks.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As correctly argued
by the Solicitor General, however, while due deference is given to the
opinion of the Vice-President, the same should properly be addressed to
the legislature which is in a better position to review the
effectiveness
and usefulness of the law.[19]
As held in the case of Lozano,[20]
it is not for the Court to question the wisdom or policy of the
statute.
It is sufficient that a reasonable nexus exists between the means and
the
end.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner further claims
that the dishonored checks were not issued for deposit and encashment,[21]
nor was there consideration therefor, in support of which she cites her
alleged agreement with Yolanda - that she could have the stone
appraised
to determine the purchase price,[22]
and since she found out that it is only worth P160,000.00,[23]
there was no longer any need to fund the remaining checks which should
be returned to her.[24]
Yolanda, however, so petitioner adds, could no longer be reached.[25]
Petitioner thus concludes that she had already paid in full the
purchase
price of the stone, she having paid P40,000.00 cash plus the
P120,000.00
proceeds of the three cleared checks.[26]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner’s submission
does not lie. Such alleged agreement does not inspire belief. The terms
and conditions surrounding the issuance of the checks are irrelevant.[27]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"A check issued as an
evidence of debt, though not intended for encashment, has the same
effect
like any other check. It is within the contemplation of B.P. 22, which
is explicit that "any person who makes or draws and issues any check to
apply for an account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he
does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank x x x
which check is subsequently dishonored x x x shall be punished by
imprisonment."[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"BP 22 does not appear
to concern itself with what might actually be envisioned by the
parties,
its primordial intention being to instead ensure the stability and
commercial
value of checks as being virtual substitutes for currency. It is a
policy
that can be easily eroded if one has yet to determine the reason for
which
checks are issued, or the terms and conditions for their issuance,
before
an appropriate application of the legislative enactment can be made."[29]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Additionally, petitioner
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,[30]
hence, the trial court failed to uphold her right to presumption of
innocence
when she was convicted based on the sole testimony of Yolanda.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Whether the checks were
dishonored due to insufficiency of funds, or "Account Closed" as
alleged
in the informations and testified on by Yolanda,[31]
petitioner’s argument is untenable.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"It is not required
much less indispensable, for the prosecution to present the drawee
bank’s
representative as a witness to testify on the dishonor of the checks
because
of insufficiency of funds. The prosecution may present, as it did in
this
case, only complainant as a witness to prove all the elements of the
offense
charged. She is competent and qualified witness to testify that she
deposited
the checks to her account in a bank; that she subsequently received
from
the bank the checks returned unpaid with a notation ‘drawn against
insufficient
funds’ stamped or written on the dorsal side of the checks themselves,
or in a notice attached to the dishonored checks duly given to the
complainant,
and that petitioner failed to pay complainant the value of the checks
or
make arrangements for their payment in full within five (5) banking
days
after receiving notice that such checks had not been paid by the drawee
bank."[32]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Yolanda’s testimony
that when she deposited the checks to her depository bank they were
dishonored
due to "Account Closed"[33]
thus sufficed. In fact, even petitioner’s counsel during trial admitted
the dishonor, and on that ground.[34]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, petitioner
imputes bias on the part of the appellate court when it decided her
petition
for review without the comment of the Office of the Solicitor General.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The rendition of the
decision by the appellate court without the comment of the
People-Appellee
is not by itself proof of bias. In any event, the Office of the
Solicitor
General gave its comment on petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of
the appellate court’s decision.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In fine, the affirmance
of petitioner’s conviction is in order.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Administrative
Circular No. 12-2000, imprisonment need not be imposed on those found
guilty
of violating B.P. Blg. 22. Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 issued
on
February 14, 2001 vests in the courts the discretion to determine,
taking
into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case, whether the
imposition of fine alone would best serve the interests of justice, or
whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate the
seriousness
of the offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise
contrary
to the imperatives of justice.[35]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar,
this Court notes that no proof, nay allegation, was proffered that
petitioner
was not a first time offender. Considering this and the correctness of
the case, it would best serve the interests of justice if petitioner 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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the assailed
decision of the Court of Appeals finding petitioner JOY LEE RECUERDO
guilty
of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In lieu of imprisonment,
accused-herein petitioner JOY LEE RECUERDO, is ordered to pay a FINE
equivalent
to double the amount of each dishonored check subject of the five cases
at bar. And she is also ordered to pay private complainant, Yolanda
Floro,
the amount of Two Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos representing the
total amount of the dishonored checks.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno,
J., (Chairman)
,
Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Corona,
JJ.
,
concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Court of Appeals Rollo, [hereinafter CA Rollo] pp. 32 - 34.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id. at pp. 35, 38.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at p. 40.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
From the CA Rollo, it is gathered that the letter of demand was marked
as Exhibit 'F.'
[5]
CA Rollo, pp. 40-42.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
CA Rollo, pp. 24-28.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Penned by Judge Leticia Querubin Ulibarri.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Rollo, p. 53.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Penned by Judge Erna Falloran Aliposa.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Penned by Justice Romeo Callejo, Sr. (now Supreme Court Justice).
[11]
Rollo, pp. 12-13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Rollo, p. 17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id. at p. 18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id. at pp. 17-18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
146 SCRA 323 (1986).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323 (1986).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Rollo, p. 19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Id. at p. 138.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
CA Rollo, p. 66.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Id. at p. 69.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Id. at p. 72.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Id. at p. 73.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Id. at p. 74.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Rollo, p. 24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Lim v. People, 340 SCRA 497 (2000).
[28]
Dico, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 305 SCRA 637 (1999).
[29]
Meriz v. People, G. R. No. 134498, November 13, 2001.
[30]
Rollo, p. 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
CA Rollo, p. 35.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
Tadeo v. People, 300 SCRA 744 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
CA Rollo, p. 35.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
Id. at p. 38.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
So v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 138869, August 29, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |