ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 135785. February 3, 1999]

CLARITA DE GUZMAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 3, 1999.

G.R. No. 135785 (Clarita de Guzman vs. People of the Philippines and Court of Appeals.)

Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming her conviction for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

During trial, the prosecution presented evidence which included Coconut Planters Bank [UCPB] Check No. 275686 in the amount of P3,670,000.00 in favor of PBC dated June 21, 1993 together with the check return slip dated July 9, 1993, notice of [UCPB] for Check No. 275686 showing that it was dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account.

Petitioner offered no objection to the documentary evidence and her conviction followed shortly.

Subsequent appeal and motion for reconsideration having failed, petitioner filed the instant petition which must likewise fail.

It is to be noted that petitioner herself categorically admits that the prosecution's evidence is enough to sustain conviction when in the opening line of her argument she states:

The prosecution's evidence surely made out a case for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

(pp. 4, Petition; p. 21, Rollo.)

Petitioner nonetheless claims that she never hid the fact that the subject check was not funded and that the bank had prior knowledge of the fact that the check issued was really worthless, for which reason, PBC is estopped from pursuing the case against her.

The gravamen of the offense defined by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is knowingly issuing a worthless check (Lim vs. Court of Appeals, 251 SCRA 408 [1995]). The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the issuance of a worthless checks and putting them in circulation (Lozano vs. Martinez, 146 SCRA 324 [1986]). The essential element is knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds in or credit with the bank to cover the check upon presentment. Petitioner's allegation that UCPB had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds to cover the amount stated in the check is of no moment and offers her no comfort, this very admission sealing her conviction.

Lastly, the Court notes that the certification on no-forum shopping was executed by counsel and not petitioner herself.

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE