Cueme vs. People

The gravamen of the offense punished under B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making or issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon presentment; the purpose for which the check was issued is immaterial. Because the offense is malum prohibitum, criminal intent is unnecessary, and defenses of good faith or absence of consideration are unavailing.

Helen Simolde, a bank teller at the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) Makati Branch, lent money to Felipa B. Cueme, General Manager of Mark-Agro Trading Corporation. Cueme issued fifteen post-dated crossed checks drawn against the corporate account to Simolde, covering the amounts lent plus interest. When Simolde deposited the checks, they were dishonored for being drawn against insufficient funds (DAIF). Despite repeated demands, Cueme failed to make good the checks.

• The Loan Transactions and Dishonor: Simolde and Cueme became friends due to their common Davao roots. Simolde lent Cueme various amounts totaling over a million pesos, for which Cueme issued fifteen post-dated crossed checks drawn against Mark-Agro Trading Corporation's BPI account. The face values of the checks included the principal amounts lent plus interest. On several occasions, Cueme persuaded Simolde not to deposit the checks. Simolde finally deposited all the checks on May 9, 1990, but they were dishonored for being drawn against insufficient funds. BPI bookkeeper Arnulfo Fernandez presented ledgers confirming the insufficiency of funds in the petitioner's accounts at the time of issuance.
• Petitioner's Version: Cueme denied borrowing money from Simolde, claiming the funds came from corporate investors. She alleged that Simolde procured pre-signed blank checks from Cueme's secretary, Leonora Gabuan, and unilaterally entered the dates, names, and amounts. Gabuan corroborated this, testifying that she initially refused Simolde's request for the checks but eventually relented, filling up three blank checks at Simolde's insistence while informing Simolde that the checks were unfunded.
• Contradictory Affidavits: During the preliminary investigation, Cueme and Gabuan submitted a Counter-Affidavit and an Affidavit, respectively, stating that Cueme issued the checks to Simolde for showing to potential investors, and that Gabuan was instructed by Cueme to deliver the checks to Simolde. At trial, both retracted these statements, denying that the checks were issued to Simolde. They claimed they signed the affidavits hastily and did not understand the English text because they were Visayans. The trial court rejected these explanations, noting that both women were well-educated in banking and finance and exhibited a good command of English during their testimony. Furthermore, some checks bore Cueme's endorsement at the back, while others with altered entries were countersigned by her, contradicting the claim that the checks were merely signed in blank and procured without her authority.

• Petitioner maintained that she did not issue the checks in question, having merely signed them in blank.
• Petitioner argued that complainant procured the checks from petitioner's secretary, made the corresponding entries therein, and thereafter deposited them in her account.
• Petitioner contended that the checks were not issued for value or consideration, as they were merely intended to be shown to would-be investors of Mark-Agro Trading Corporation and not to be encashed or deposited in a bank.

• Respondent argued that the checks were issued for value to cover loans extended by Simolde.
• Respondent maintained that the purpose for which the checks were issued is immaterial under B.P. Blg. 22, as the gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a worthless check.
• Respondent relied on the complainant's credible testimony and the petitioner's prior judicial admissions in the affidavits during the preliminary investigation.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the petitioner can be convicted under B.P. Blg. 22 if the checks were allegedly issued merely to be shown to prospective investors and not for encashment or deposit.
  • Whether the defense of absence of consideration or good faith negates criminal liability under B.P. Blg. 22.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Court held that the petitioner can be convicted regardless of the alleged purpose for which the checks were issued. The gravamen of the offense punished under B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making or issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon presentment. The law punishes the issuance of a rubber check itself and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. To allow such distinctions would erode public faith in checks as currency substitutes and wreak havoc in the trading and banking communities.
  • The Court ruled that the defense of absence of consideration or good faith is unavailing. Because the offense is malum prohibitum, criminal intent becomes unnecessary where the acts are prohibited for reasons of public policy. The only inquiry is whether the law has been breached. Furthermore, the factual defense that the checks were not issued to the complainant was rejected based on the complainant's credible testimony and the petitioner's contradictory affidavits, which admitted issuing the checks to the complainant.

• Malum Prohibitum under B.P. Blg. 22 — The offense of issuing a bouncing check is malum prohibitum, an act proscribed by the legislature for being deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare. Criminal intent becomes unnecessary where the acts are prohibited for reasons of public policy, and the defenses of good faith and absence of criminal intent are unavailing. The only inquiry is whether the law has been breached.
• Gravamen of the Offense under B.P. Blg. 22 — The gravamen of the offense is the act of making or issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment. The law punishes the issuance of the bad check itself, not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance.
• Presumption of Knowledge of Insufficiency of Funds — A maker's knowledge of insufficiency of funds is presumed from the dishonor of the check for insufficiency of funds. Once proved that the maker or drawer had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds or credit, which is an element of the offense, he is rendered ipso facto liable.

• "The gravamen of the offense punished under B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making or issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment. The law has made the mere act of issuing a bad check malum prohibitum, an act proscribed by the legislature for being deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare."
• "What the law punishes is the issuance of a rubber check itself and not the purpose for which the check was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance."

• Lozano v. Martinez, G.R. No. 63419, 18 December 1986 — Cited as controlling precedent establishing that the issuance of worthless checks transcends private interests and injures the community at large, justifying B.P. Blg. 22 as a measure to protect public interest.
• People v. Nitafan, G.R. No. 75954, 22 October 1992 — Followed for the ruling that what the law punishes is the issuance of a rubber check itself and not the purpose for which it was issued.
• People v. Reyes, G.R. Nos. 101127-31, 18 November 1993 — Cited for the proposition that offenses under B.P. Blg. 22 are malum prohibitum.
• Vaca v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131714, 16 November 1998 — Followed for the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds arising from the dishonor of the check.
• Ibasco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117488, 5 September 1996 — Followed for the rule that the credible testimony of a lone witness is sufficient to convict.

• Section 1, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 — Provides the penalty for issuing a worthless check, which includes imprisonment and a fine "not less than but not more than double the amount of the check, which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos." Applied to reduce the fine in Criminal Case No. 92-5616 from P220,000.00 to the statutory maximum of P200,000.00.
• Section 2, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 — Defines the two ways of violating the law: (a) making or drawing and issuing a check to apply on account or for value knowing at the time of issue that the check is not sufficiently funded; and (b) having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank but failing to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check within ninety days. Petitioner was convicted under the first type of violation.

Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur. Quisumbing, J., concurred in the result.