Lim vs. People

A conviction under B.P. Blg. 22 does not require proof that the check was issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation or that damage was caused to the payee; the gravamen is the act of making and issuing a worthless check, and the purpose, terms, or recipient of the check are irrelevant to culpability.

Petitioner Rosa Lim was a jewelry buyer who transacted with Maria Antonia Seguan, a jewelry store owner in Cebu City. The case involves the application of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law), which penalizes the issuance of checks without sufficient funds. The statutory framework creates a presumption juris tantum of knowledge of insufficient funds when a check is dishonored and the issuer fails to pay or make arrangements within five banking days of receiving notice of dishonor.

On August 25, 1990, petitioner Rosa Lim called Maria Antonia Seguan by phone and thereafter went to Seguan's store in Cebu City. There, Lim purchased various kinds of jewelry — Singaporean necklaces, bracelets, and rings — worth ₱300,000.00. She issued a Metrobank check dated August 25, 1990, payable to "cash," in the amount of ₱300,000.00, and gave the check to Seguan.

The following day, August 26, 1990, Lim again purchased jewelry from Seguan's store, this time valued at ₱241,668.00. She issued another Metrobank check, this one dated August 16, 1990, payable to "cash," in the amount of ₱241,668.00. Lim sent this second check to Seguan through a certain Aurelia Nadera.

Seguan deposited both checks with her bank, but both were returned with a notice of dishonor. Petitioner's account at Metrobank, from which the checks were drawn, had been closed. Upon demand, Lim promised to pay Seguan the amounts of the two dishonored checks but never did.

On June 5, 1991, an Assistant City Prosecutor of Cebu filed two informations with the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, Branch 23, charging Lim with violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Criminal Case No. CBU-22127 concerned Metrobank Check No. CLN 094244391 dated August 25, 1990, in the amount of ₱300,000.00, while Criminal Case No. CBU-22128 concerned Metrobank Check No. CLN-094244392 dated August 26, 1990, in the amount of ₱241,668.00. Both informations alleged that Lim, knowing she did not have sufficient funds, issued the checks payable to Seguan in payment of an obligation, that the checks were dishonored for "Account Closed," and that despite notice and demands, Lim failed and refused to make good the checks.

Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded "not guilty" in both cases. At trial, petitioner denied knowing Seguan or having any transaction with her. According to petitioner, she issued the two checks and gave them to Aurelia Nadera, not to Seguan. She claimed the checks were given to Nadera as a "security arrangement" or "guarantee" for jewelry she received on consignment, to ensure she would return the jewelry if she could not sell it. The trial court found the prosecution's evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, convicting Lim on December 29, 1992. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in toto on October 15, 1996.

• Lack of Transaction with Complainant: Petitioner argued that she never knew Seguan and had no transaction with her, maintaining that the checks were issued to Aurelia Nadera, not to Seguan.
• Checks as Security/Guarantee: Petitioner maintained that the checks were given to Nadera as a "security arrangement" or "guarantee" that she would return jewelry received on consignment if she could not sell them, not in payment of an obligation to Seguan.

• Elements of B.P. 22: Whether the prosecution established all elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22, particularly knowledge of insufficient funds at the time of issuance.
• Purpose of Issuance: Whether the purpose or recipient of the check is relevant to culpability under B.P. Blg. 22.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty of imprisonment should be maintained or modified.

• Elements of B.P. 22: Yes. All three elements were present; the presumption juris tantum of knowledge of insufficient funds was not rebutted, and petitioner failed to pay or make arrangements within five banking days of notice of dishonor.
• Purpose of Issuance: No, the purpose or recipient is irrelevant. B.P. 22 is malum prohibitum; the gravamen is the act of issuing a worthless check, not the obligation it secures.
• Penalty: Modified. The prison sentence was deleted, applying the philosophy of the Indeterminate Sentence Law; only fines of ₱200,000.00 per count were imposed.

• Elements of B.P. 22: The three elements of B.P. 22 are: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of a check to apply for account or for value; (2) knowledge of the maker that at the time of issue she does not have sufficient funds; and (3) subsequent dishonor by the drawee bank. Petitioner never denied issuing the two checks, so the first and third elements were admittedly present. Section 2 of B.P. 22 creates a presumption juris tantum that the second element prima facie exists when the first and third elements are present. Petitioner failed to prove that at the time of issue she did not know her funds were insufficient. Her account was closed, the checks were dishonored, and she failed to pay or make arrangements within five banking days of notice of dishonor. The presumption, not having been rebutted, sufficed to sustain conviction.

• Purpose of Issuance: The gravamen of B.P. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or one dishonored upon presentment. The act is malum prohibitum, pernicious and inimical to public welfare. Why and to whom the check was issued is irrelevant in determining culpability; the terms and conditions surrounding the issuance are likewise irrelevant. Unlike estafa, under B.P. 22 one need not prove that the check was issued in payment of an obligation or that damage was caused to the payee — the damage is to the banking system. Citing United States vs. Go Chico, in acts mala prohibita the only inquiry is whether the law was violated; criminal intent is entirely immaterial. Petitioner's defense that the checks were merely guarantees to a third party thus failed to negate culpability.

• Penalty: B.P. 22 provides for imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one year, or a fine not less than but not more than double the amount of the check (not exceeding ₱200,000.00), or both. Applying Vaca vs. Court of Appeals, the philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law — to redeem valuable human material and prevent unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness — applies to penalties under B.P. 22. The Court deleted the prison sentence and imposed only fines, considering that petitioner brought the appeal in good faith believing no violation had been committed. The award of moral damages and attorney's fees was deleted for lack of sufficient basis.

• Presumption juris tantum of knowledge of insufficient funds — Under Section 2 of B.P. 22, the making, drawing, and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee for insufficient funds constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency, unless the maker pays the holder or makes arrangements for payment within five (5) banking days after receiving notice of dishonor. The Court applied this presumption: since the first and third elements were present, the second element was presumed, and petitioner failed to rebut it.

• B.P. 22 as malum prohibitum — The gravamen of B.P. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check. The purpose or recipient of the check is irrelevant; criminal intent is immaterial. The damage punished is to the banking system, not to any particular payee. The Court applied this by rejecting petitioner's defense that the checks were merely guarantees to a third party, holding that such terms and conditions surrounding the issuance are irrelevant to culpability.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law philosophy in B.P. 22 penalties — Following Vaca vs. Court of Appeals, the philosophy of the Indeterminate Sentence Law — redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of liberty — applies to penalties under B.P. 22. The Court may delete the prison sentence and impose only a fine, particularly where the accused appealed in good faith believing no violation was committed.

• "Why and to whom the check was issued is irrelevant in determining culpability. The terms and conditions surrounding the issuance of the checks are also irrelevant." — This passage articulates the malum prohibitum nature of B.P. 22, distinguishing it from estafa and establishing that the purpose of issuance is immaterial to liability.

• "The gravamen of B.P. No. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or one that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment." — This defines the essential wrong punished by B.P. 22 and is frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on the Bouncing Checks Law.

• "Hoc quidem per quam durum est sed ita lex scripta est. The law may be exceedingly hard but so the law is written." — This Latin maxim underscores the Court's position that the perceived harshness of B.P. 22's application cannot override the clear statutory text, even as the Court exercised its discretion to modify the penalty.

• United States vs. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 128 (1909) — Cited for the principle that in acts mala prohibita, criminal intent is immaterial and the only inquiry is whether the law was violated. The Court relied on this to reject petitioner's defense regarding the purpose of the checks.

• Vaca vs. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 658 (1998) — Controlling precedent for modifying the penalty under B.P. 22. The Court followed Vaca in deleting the prison sentence and imposing only fines, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law philosophy to redeem valuable human material.

• Francisco T. Sycip, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125059, March 17, 2000 — Cited for the elements of B.P. 22 and the presumption juris tantum of knowledge of insufficient funds.

• King vs. People, G.R. No. 131540, December 2, 1999 — Cited for the proposition that the gravamen of B.P. 22 is the issuance of a worthless check and the failure to satisfy the amount within five banking days of notice of dishonor.

• Llamado vs. Court of Appeals, 270 SCRA 423 (1997) — Cited for the irrelevance of the purpose or recipient of the check in determining culpability under B.P. 22.

• Section 1, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 — Defines the penalty for issuing checks without sufficient funds: imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one year, or a fine not less than but not more than double the amount of the check (not exceeding ₱200,000.00), or both. Applied to impose fines of ₱200,000.00 per count in lieu of imprisonment.

• Section 2, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 — Establishes the presumption juris tantum that dishonor for insufficient funds constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficiency, unless the maker pays or arranges payment within five banking days of notice. Applied to sustain the conviction, as petitioner failed to rebut the presumption.

• Article 39, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code — Referenced regarding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency or non-payment, not to exceed six months. Applied to the modified penalty of fine only.

Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Purisima, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concurred. Quisumbing, J., concurred in the result. Ynares-Santiago, J., was on leave.