Lim vs. People

In prosecutions for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, proof of service of notice of dishonor sent by registered mail may be established through the personal testimony of the mailer identifying the registry receipt and return card, without need for an authenticating affidavit, and the court may compare the signature on the return card with admitted genuine signatures to prove receipt; furthermore, the penalty of fine under Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22 must not exceed P200,000.00 for each count, and monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the filing of the complaint until finality of the decision, and six percent (6%) per annum thereafter until full satisfaction.

Private respondent Blue Pacific Holdings, Inc. (BPHI) granted a loan amounting to P1,149,500.00 to Rochelle Benito, evidenced by a Promissory Note dated July 29, 2003. Petitioner Ivy Lim signed as co-maker, binding herself jointly and severally liable for the obligation. To secure the loan, Benito and Lim issued eleven (11) postdated checks drawn against Equitable PCI Bank, each with a face value of P67,617.65. Ten of these checks were subsequently dishonored upon presentment for payment on the ground that the account had been closed. Despite demand letters sent to Lim, including a final demand dated June 28, 2005, the obligations remained unpaid, prompting BPHI to file eleven (11) criminal complaints for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

• BPHI granted a loan of P1,149,500.00 to Rochelle Benito on July 29, 2003, evidenced by a Promissory Note notarized on the same date, with Ivy Lim signing as co-maker.
• To secure the loan, Benito and Lim issued eleven (11) postdated Equitable PCI Bank checks payable to BPHI, each valued at P67,617.65, with dates ranging from May 29, 2004 to March 29, 2005.
• Ten (10) of these checks were dishonored by the drawee bank when presented for payment because the account had been closed; Check No. 0105461 (dated May 29, 2004) was not presented for payment.
• BPHI sent various demand letters to Lim, culminating in a final demand letter dated June 28, 2005, sent via registered mail to Lim's address in Malolos, Bulacan.
• The registry return card for the final demand letter bore a signature which the prosecution claimed was Lim's, dated May 24, 2005.
• During the preliminary conference, the parties stipulated to: (1) the jurisdiction of the court; (2) the identity of Lim as the accused; (3) the existence of the complaint affidavit; (4) the existence of the promissory note and Lim's signature thereon; and (5) the existence and due execution of the eleven (11) checks with BPHI as payee.
• BPHI Finance Officer Juanito Enriquez testified for the prosecution that he personally witnessed Lim sign the subject checks and that he personally mailed the demand letter via registered mail, identifying the registry receipt and the return card with Lim's signature.
• Lim claimed she was abroad from July 21, 2003 to October 29, 2003, as evidenced by a Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) certification, and thus could not have signed the checks on July 29, 2003.
• Lim raised additional defenses that BPHI lacked a permit to engage in financing business, that the checks were issued for an illegal purpose (human trafficking), and that there was no valuable consideration for the checks.

• The registry return card was never authenticated because Enriquez did not personally see Lim receive the notice or sign the registry receipt; mere comparison of signatures between unauthenticated documents (checks and return card) is not sanctioned by the Rules of Evidence or jurisprudence.
• The subject checks were unauthenticated because Lim was abroad on July 29, 2003, contradicting Enriquez's testimony that she signed the checks on that date; citing Unchuan v. Lozada, unauthenticated checks cannot prove that she was the person who issued them.
• The Promissory Note was never presented, identified, authenticated, or testified on during trial, and therefore cannot be admitted in evidence or used to prove her guilt or civil liability; citing Unchuan v. Lozada.
• The defense of lack of consideration is available under the Negotiable Instruments Law, and she cannot be held civilly liable for the checks.

• The prosecution complied with the requirements for proving service of notice of dishonor under Resterio v. People by presenting Enriquez who testified that he personally sent the demand letter via registered mail and identified the registry receipt and return card.
• Enriquez was competent to identify Lim's signature on the return card because he had seen her sign the subject checks, and the court properly compared the signatures under Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
• The existence and due execution of the checks and the promissory note were stipulated upon during the preliminary conference, dispensing with the need for further authentication.
• The Promissory Note was presented as an integral part of the Complaint-Affidavit which was identified and testified on by Enriquez, and its existence was admitted by Lim's counsel during cross-examination.
• The defense of lack of consideration fails because Lim failed to specifically deny the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note under oath as required by Rule 8, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, and failed to present clear evidence to overturn the disputable presumption of consideration under Rule 131, Section 3.
• As a co-maker who agreed to be jointly and severally liable, Lim is bound by the contract; the fact that the loan was granted to the principal debtor (her sister) constitutes sufficient consideration.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the prosecution properly authenticated the registry return card to prove receipt of the notice of dishonor by Lim.
  • Whether the subject checks were properly authenticated to establish that Lim issued them.
  • Whether the Promissory Note was properly admitted in evidence despite not being separately presented and identified during trial.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the prosecution proved all the elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Whether Lim's defense of alibi (being abroad on July 29, 2003) negates her criminal and civil liability.
  • Whether the penalty of a lump sum fine of P676,176.50 imposed by the MeTC conforms to the limits prescribed by Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22.
  • Whether the interest rate imposed on the civil liability is proper.

• Procedural:
  • The registry return card was properly authenticated. Under Resterio v. People, proof of service by registered mail may consist of the registry return receipt and the registry receipt together with the authenticating affidavit of the mailer, or through the personal testimony of the mailer in court. Here, Enriquez testified that he personally mailed the demand letter and identified the registry receipt and return card, satisfying the requirement.
  • The court properly compared Lim's signature on the return card with her signatures on the checks under Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, which allows handwriting to be proved by comparison made by the witness or the court with writings admitted or treated as genuine.
  • The checks were properly authenticated through Enriquez's testimony that he saw Lim sign them, and through the parties' stipulation during preliminary conference admitting the existence and due execution of the checks.
  • The Promissory Note was properly admitted. It was attached to the Complaint-Affidavit which was presented, identified, and testified on by Enriquez. Furthermore, Lim's counsel admitted during cross-examination that the original promissory note was the same document referred to in the stipulation.
• Substantive:
  • All elements of B.P. Blg. 22 were proven: (1) Lim issued the checks to apply for value or on account as security for the loan; (2) the checks were dishonored for being drawn against a closed account; and (3) Lim had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds, evidenced by her receipt of the notice of dishonor and her failure to pay despite demand.
  • The defense of alibi fails. The material date is the date of issuance appearing on the face of the checks (2004-2005), not July 29, 2003 (the date of the promissory note). The offense is deemed committed upon issuance of the checks, not upon signing of the promissory note.
  • The lump sum fine of P676,176.50 imposed by the MeTC exceeded the P200,000.00 limit prescribed by Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22. The penalty is modified to a fine of P67,617.65 (the face value of each check) for each of the ten (10) counts, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
  • The interest on the civil liability is modified to twelve percent (12%) per annum from the date of filing of the Informations (May 22, 2006) until the finality of this Decision, and six percent (6%) per annum from finality until full payment, in line with Nacar v. Gallery Frames, Inc.

• Proof of Service of Notice of Dishonor under B.P. Blg. 22 — As held in Resterio v. People, when notice is sent by registered mail, proof consists of the registry return receipt and registry receipt accompanied by the authenticating affidavit of the mailer; absent an affidavit, the mailer's personal testimony in court regarding the sending by registered mail suffices.
• Comparison of Handwriting — Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court allows the genuineness of handwriting to be proved by comparison made by the witness or the court with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered.
• Stipulation as to Due Execution — Under the Rules of Court, parties may stipulate on the existence and due execution of documents, thereby dispensing with the need for formal authentication and presentation of the original during trial.
• Deemed Admission of Genuineness — Rule 8, Section 8 provides that when an action is founded upon a written instrument, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them and sets forth what he claims to be the facts.
• Interest Rates on Monetary Awards — Following Nacar v. Gallery Frames, Inc., monetary awards shall earn interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum from the date of filing until finality of the decision, and six percent (6%) per annum from finality until full satisfaction.
• Penalty Limit under B.P. Blg. 22 — Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22 provides that the fine shall not exceed P200,000.00, regardless of the number of counts or the total amount of the dishonored checks.

• "If the service of the written notice is by registered mail, the proof of service consists not only in the presentation as evidence of the registry return receipt but also of the registry receipt together with the authenticating affidavit of the person mailing the notice of dishonor. Without the authenticating affidavit, the proof of giving the notice of dishonor is insufficient, unless the mailer personally testifies in court on the sending by registered mail."
• "The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write... Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge."

• Resterio v. People (695 Phil. 693) — Cited for the rule on proof of service of notice of dishonor by registered mail in B.P. Blg. 22 cases, holding that personal testimony of the mailer may substitute for an authenticating affidavit.
• Nacar v. Gallery Frames, Inc. (716 Phil. 267) — Cited for the proper computation of legal interest on monetary awards: 12% per annum from filing until finality, and 6% per annum from finality until full payment.
• Unchuan v. Lozada — Cited by the petitioner regarding authentication of documents, though the Supreme Court found it inapplicable to the facts of the case.

• Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, Section 1 — Defines the offense of bouncing checks and prescribes the penalty of imprisonment or fine (not exceeding P200,000.00), or both.
• Revised Penal Code, Article 39 — Provides for subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency to enforce fines.
• Rules of Court, Rule 111, Section 1(b) — States that the criminal action for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action, with no reservation allowed.
• Rules of Court, Rule 8, Section 8 — Deems the genuineness and due execution of written instruments admitted unless specifically denied under oath by the adverse party.
• Rules of Court, Rule 131, Section 3(r) and (s) — Presumptions regarding consideration for contracts and negotiable instruments.
• Rules of Court, Rule 132, Section 22 — Provides for the proof of handwriting by comparison or witness testimony.