Manila
THIRD
DIVISION
LINA
LIM LAO,
Petitioner,
G.
R.
No. 119178
June
20,
1997 -versus-
COURT
OF APPEALS
and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
D
E C I S I
O N
PANGANIBAN,
J.:
May an employee who, as
part of her regular duties, signs blank corporate checks with the name
of the payee and the amount drawn to be filled later by another
signatory
and, therefore, does so without actual knowledge of whether such checks
are funded, be held criminally liable for violation of Batas Pambansa
Bilang
22 [B. P. 22], when checks so signed are dishonored due to
insufficiency
of funds? Does a notice of dishonor sent to the main office of the
corporation
constitute a valid notice to the said employee who holds office in a
separate
branch and who had no actual knowledge thereof? In other words, is
constructive
knowledge of the corporation, but not of the signatory-employee,
sufficient?
These are the questions
raised in the petition filed on March 21, 1995 assailing the Decision[1]
of Respondent Court of Appeals[2]
promulgated on December 9, 1994 in CA-G. R. CR No. 14240 dismissing the
appeal of petitioner and affirming the decision dated September 26,
1990
in Criminal Cases Nos. 84-26967 to 84-26969 of the Regional Trial Court
of Manila, Branch 33. The dispositive portion of the said RTC decision
affirmed by the respondent appellate court reads:[3]
"WHEREFORE, after a
careful consideration of the evidence presented by the prosecution and
that of the defense, the Court renders judgment as follows:
"In Criminal Case
No.
84-26969 where no evidence was presented by the prosecution
notwithstanding
the fact that there was an agreement that the cases be tried jointly
and
also the fact that the accused Lina Lim Lao was already arraigned, for
failure of the prosecution to adduce evidence against the
accused,
the Court hereby declares her innocent of the crime charged and she is
hereby acquitted with cost de oficio.
"For Criminal Case
No.
84-26967, the Court finds the accused Lina Lim Lao guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt of the crime charged and is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty
of ONE (1) YEAR imprisonment and to pay a fine of P150,000.00 without
subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
For Criminal Case No.
84-26968, the Court finds the accused Lina Lim Lao guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt of the crime charged and is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty
of ONE (1) YEAR imprisonment and to pay a fine of P150,000.00 without
subsidiary
imprisonment in case of of (sic) insolvency.
"For the two cases
the
accused is ordered to pay the cost of suit.
"The cash bond put
up
by the accused for her provisional liberty in Criminal Case No.
84-26969
where she is declared acquitted is hereby ordered cancelled (sic).
"With reference to
the
accused Teodulo Asprec who has remained at large, in order that the
cases
as against him may not remain pending in the docket for an indefinite
period,
let the same be archived without prejudice to its subsequent
prosecution
as soon as said accused is finally apprehended.
"Let a warrant
issue
for the arrest of the accused Teodulo Asprec which warrant need not be
returned to this Court until the accused is finally arrested.
"SO ORDERED."
The Facts
Version of the Prosecution
The facts are not disputed.
We thus lift them from the assailed Decision, as follows:
Appellant [and now Petitioner
Lina Lim Lao] was a junior officer of Premiere Investment House
[Premiere]
in its Binondo Branch. As such officer, she was authorized to sign
checks
for and in behalf of the corporation [TSN, August 16, 1990, p. 6]. In
the
course of the business, she met complainant Father Artelijo Pelijo, the
provincial treasurer of the Society of the Divine Word through Mrs.
Rosemarie
Lachenal, a trader for Premiere. Father Palijo was authorized to invest
donations to the society and had been investing the society's money
with
Premiere [TSN, June 23, 1987, pp. 5, 9-10]. Father Palijo had invested
a total of P514,484.04, as evidenced by the Confirmation of Sale No.
82-6994
[Exh "A"] dated July 8, 1993. Father Palijo was also issued Traders
Royal
Bank [TRB] checks in payment of interest, as follows:
Check
Date
Amount
299961
Oct. 7, 1993 (sic) P
150,000.00
[Exh. "B"]
299962
Oct. 7, 1983 P
150,000.00
[Exh. "C"]
323835
Oct. 7, 1983
P
26,010.73
All the checks were issued
in favor of Artelijo A. Palijo and signed by appellant (herein
petitioner)
and Teodulo Asprec, who was the head of operations. Further evidence of
the transaction was the acknowledgment of postdated checks dated July
8,
1983 [Exh. "D"] and the cash disbursement voucher [Exh. "F", TSN,
supra,
at pp. 11-16].
When Father Palijo presented
the checks for encashment, the same were dishonored for the reason
"Drawn
Against Insufficient Funds" [DAIF]. Father Palijo immediately made
demands
on premiere to pay him the necessary amounts. He first went to the
Binondo
Branch but was referred to the Cubao Main Branch where he was able to
talk
with the President, Mr. Cariño. For his efforts, he was paid
P5,000.00.
Since no other payments followed, Father Palijo wrote Premiere a formal
letter of demand Subsequently, Premiere was placed under
receivership
(TSN, supra, at pp. 16-19).[4]
Thereafter, on January
24, 1984, Private Complainant Palijo filed an affidavit-complaint
against
Petitioner Lina Lim Lao and Teodulo Asprec for violation of B.P. 22.
After
preliminary investigation,[5]
three Informations charging Lao and Asprec with the offense defined in
the first paragraph of Section 1, B.P. 22 were filed by Assistant
Fiscal
Felix S. Caballes before the trial court on May 11, 1984,[6]
worded as follows:
1. In Criminal Case
No. 84-26967:
That on or about
October
7, 1983 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then
and
there wilfully and unlawfully draw and issue to Artelijo A. Palijo to
apply
on account or for value a Traders Royal Bank Check No. 299962 for
P150,000.00
payable to Fr. Artelijo A. Palijo dated October 7, 1983 well knowing
that
at the time of issue he/she did not have sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank for full payment of the said check upon its
presentment
as in fact the said check, when presented within ninety (90) days from
the date thereof, was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason:
"Insufficient
Funds"; that despite notice of such dishonor, said accused failed to
pay
said Artelijo A. Palijo the amount of the said check or to make
arrangement
for full payment of the same within five (5) banking days from receipt
of said notice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
2. In Criminal Case No.
84-26968:
That on or about
October
7, 1983 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then
and
there wilfully and unlawfully draw and issue to Artelijo A. Palijo to
apply
on account or for value a Traders Royal Bank Check No. 299961 for
P150,000.00
payable to Fr. Artelijo A. Palijo dated October 7, '83 well knowing
that
at the time of issue he/she did not have sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank for full payment of the said check upon its
presentment
as in fact the said check, when presented within ninety (90) days from
the date thereof, was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason:
"Insufficient
Funds"; that despite notice of such dishonor, said accused failed to
pay
said Artelijo A. Palijo the amount of the said check or to make
arrangement
for full payment of the same within five (5) banking days from receipt
of said notice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
3. And finally in Criminal
Case No. 84-26969:
That on or about July
8, 1983 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then
and
there wilfully and unlawfully draw and issue to Artelijo A. Palijo to
apply
on account for value a Traders Royal Bank Check No. 323835 for
P26,010.03
payable to Fr. Artelijo A. Palijo dated October 7, 1983 well knowing
that
at the time of issue he/she did not have sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank for full payment of the said check upon its
presentment
as in fact the said check, when presented within ninety (90) days from
the date thereof, was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason:
"Insufficient
Funds"; that despite notice of such dishonor, said accused failed to
pay
said Artelijo A. Palijo the amount of the said check or to make
arrangement
for full payment of the same within five (5) banking days from receipt
of said notice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon being arraigned, petitioner
assisted by counsel pleaded "not guilty." Asprec was not arrested; he
has
remained at large since the trial, and even now on appeal.
After due trial, the
Regional Trial Court convicted Petitioner Lina Lim Lao in Criminal
Cases
Nos. 84-26967 and 84-26968 but acquitted her in Criminal Case No.
84-26969.[7]
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial
court.cralaw:red
Version of the Defense
Petitioner aptly summarized
her version of the facts of the case thus:
Petitioner Lina Lim
Lao was, in 1983, an employee of Premiere Financing Corporation
[hereinafter
referred to as the "Corporation"], a corporation engaged in investment
management, with principal business office at Miami, Cubao, Quezon
City.
She was a junior officer at the corporation who was, however, assigned
not at its main branch but at the corporation's extension office in
[Binondo]
Manila. [Ocampo, T S N, 16 August 1990, p. 14]
In the regular course
of her duties as a junior officer, she was required to co-sign checks
drawn
against the account of the corporation. The other co-signor was her
head
of office, Mr. Teodulo Asprec. Since part of her duties required her to
be mostly in the field and out of the office, it was normal procedure
for
her to sign the checks in blank, that is, without the names of the
payees,
the amounts and the dates of maturity. It was likewise Mr. Asprec, as
head
of office, who alone decided to whom the checks were to be ultimately
issued
and delivered. [Lao, TSN, 28 September 1989, pp. 9-11, 17, 19].cralaw:red
In signing the checks
as part of her duties as junior officer of the corporation, petitioner
had no knowledge of the actual funds available in the corporate
account.
[Lao, TSN, 28 September 1989, p. 21]. The power, duty and
responsibility
of monitoring and assessing the balances against the checks issued, and
funding the checks thus issued, devolved on the corporation's Treasury
Department in its main office in Cubao, Quezon City, headed then by the
Treasurer, Ms. Veronilyn Ocampo. (Ocampo, T SN, 19 July 1990, p. 4;
Lao,
TSN, 28 September 1989, pp. 21-23) All bank statements regarding the
corporate
checking account were likewise sent to the main branch in Cubao, Quezon
City, and not in Binondo, Manila, where petitioner was holding office.
(Ocampo, TSN, 19 July 1990, p. 24; Marqueses, TSN, 22 November 1988, p.
8).cralaw:red
The foregoing circumstances
attended the issuance of the checks subject of the instant prosecution.
The checks were issued
to guarantee payment of investments placed by private complainant
Palijo
with Premiere Financing Corporation. In his transactions with the
corporation,
private complainant dealt exclusively with one Rosemarie Lachenal, a
trader
connected with the corporation, and he never knew nor in any way dealt
with petitioner Lina Lim Lao at any time before or during the issuance
of the delivery of the checks. (Palijo, TSN, 23 June 1987, pp. 28-29,
32-34;
Lao, TSN, 15 May 1990, p. 6; Ocampo, TSN, p. 5) Petitioner Lina Lim Lao
was not in any way involved in the transaction which led to the
issuance
of the checks.cralaw:red
When the checks were
co-signed by petitioner, they were signed in advance and in blank,
delivered
to the Head of Operations, Mr. Teodulo Asprec, who subsequently filled
in the names of the payee, the amounts and the corresponding dates of
maturity.
After Mr. Asprec signed the checks, they were delivered to private
complainant
Palijo. (Lao, TSN, 28 September 1989, pp. 8-11, 17, 19; note also that
the trial court in its decision fully accepted the testimony of
petitioner
[Decision of the Regional Trial Court, p. 12], and that the Court of
Appeals
affirmed said decision in toto)
Petitioner Lina Lim
Lao was not in any way involved in the completion, and the subsequent
delivery
of the check to private complainant Palijo. At the time
petitioner
signed the checks, she had no knowledge of the sufficiency or
insufficiency
of the funds of the corporate account. (Lao, TSN, 28 September 1989, p.
21). It was not within her powers, duties or responsibilities to
monitor and assess the balances against the issuance; much less was it
within her (duties and responsibilities) to make sure that the checks
were
funded. Premiere Financing Corporation had a Treasury Department headed
by a Treasurer, Ms. Veronilyn Ocampo, which alone had access to
information
as to account balances and which alone was responsible for funding the
issued checks. (Ocampo, TSN, 19 July 1990, p. 4; Lao, TSN, 28 September
1990, p. 23) All statements of account were sent to the Treasury
Department
located at the main office in Cubao, Quezon City. Petitioner was
holding
office at the extension in Binondo Manila. (Lao, TSN, 28 September
1989,
p. 24-25) Petitioner Lina Lim Lao did not have knowledge of the
insufficiency
of the funds in the corporate account against which the checks were
drawn.cralaw:red
When the checks were
subsequently dishonored, private complainant sent a notice of said
dishonor
to Premier Financing Corporation at its head office in Cubao, Quezon
City.
(Please refer to Exh. "E"; Palijo, TSN, 23 June 1987, p. 51) Private
complainant
did not send notice of dishonor to petitioner. (Palijo, TSN, 24 July
1987,
p. 10) He did not follow up his investment with petitioner. (Id.)
Private
complainant never contacted, never informed, and never talked with,
petitioner
after the checks had bounced. (Id., at p. 29) Petitioner never
had
notice of the dishonor of the checks subject of the instant prosecution.cralaw:red
The Treasurer of Premiere
Financing Corporation, Ms. Veronilyn Ocampo testified that it was the
head
office in Cubao, Quezon City, which received notice of dishonor of the
bounced checks. (Ocampo, TSN, 19 July 1990 pp. 7-8) The dishonor of the
check came in the wake of the assassination of the late Sen. Benigno
Aquino,
as a consequence of which event a majority of the corporation's clients
pre-terminated their investments. A period of extreme illiquidity and
financial
distress followed, which ultimately led to the corporation's being
placed
under receivership by the Securities and Exchange Commission. (Ocampo,
TSN, 16 August 1990, p. 8, 19; Lao, TSN, 28 September 1989, pp. 25-26;
Please refer also to Exhibit "1", the order of receivership issued by
the
Securities and Exchange Commission) Despite the Treasury Department's
and
(Ms. Ocampo's) knowledge of the dishonor of the checks, however, the
main
office in Cubao, Quezon City never informed petitioner Lina Lim Lao or
anybody in the Binondo office for that matter. (Ocampo, TSN, 16 August
1990, pp. 9-10) In her testimony, she justified her omission by saying
that the checks were actually the responsibility of the main office
(Ocampo,
TSN, 19 July 1990, p. 6) and that, at that time of panic withdrawals
and
massive pre-termination of clients' investments, it was futile to
inform
the Binondo office since the main office was strapped for cash and in
deep
financial distress. (Id., at pp. 7-9) Moreover, the confusion
which
came in the wake of the Aquino assassination and the consequent panic
withdrawals
caused them to lose direct communication with the Binondo office.
(Ocampo,
TSN, 16 August 1990, p. 9-10)
As a result of the financial
crisis and distress, the Securities and Exchange Commission placed
Premier
Financing Corporation under receivership, appointing a rehabilitation
receiver
for the purpose of settling claims against the corporation. (Exh. "1")
As he himself admits, private complainant filed a claim for the payment
of the bounced check before and even after the corporation had been
placed
under receivership. (Palijo, TSN, 24 July 1987, p. 10-17) A check was
prepared
by the receiver in favor of the private complainant but the same was
not
claimed by him. (Lao, TSN, 15 May 1990, p. 18)
Private complainant
then filed the instant criminal action. On 26 September 1990, the
Regional
Trial Court of Manila, Branch 33, rendered a decision convicting
petitioner,
and sentencing the latter to suffer the aggregate penalty of two (2)
years
and to pay a fine in the total amount of P300,000.00. On appeal, the
Court
of Appeals affirmed said decision. Hence, this petition for review.[8]
The Issue
In the main, petitioner
contends that the public respondent committed a reversible error in
concluding
that lack of actual knowledge of insufficiency of funds was not a
defense
in a prosecution for violation of B.P. 22. Additionally, the petitioner
argues that the notice of dishonor sent to the main office of the
corporation,
and not to petitioner herself who holds office in that corporation's
branch
office, does not constitute the notice mandated in Section 2 of BP 22;
thus, there can be no prima facie presumption that she had knowledge of
the insufficiency of funds.
The Court's
Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
Strict Interpretation
of Penal Statutes
It is well-settled in
this jurisdiction that penal statutes are strictly construed against
the
state and liberally for the accused, so much so that the scope of a
penal
statute cannot be extended by good intention, implication, or even
equity
consideration. Thus, for Petitioner Lina Lim Lao's acts to be penalized
under the Bouncing Checks Law or B.P. 22, "they must come clearly
within
both the spirit and the letter of the statute."[9]
The salient portions
of B.P. 22 read:
"Sec. 1. Checks
without sufficient funds. Any person who makes or draws and
issues
any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of
issue
that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank
for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check
is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of
funds
or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the
drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment,
shall
be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more
than
one (1) year or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the
amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two hundred
thousand
pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the
court.
"The same penalty
shall
be imposed upon any person who having sufficient funds in or credit
with
the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail
to
keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit or to cover the full
amount
of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the
date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee
bank.
Where the check is
drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who
actually
signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this
Act.
"Sec. 2. Evidence
of knowledge of insufficient funds. The making, drawing and
issuance
of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of
insufficient
funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90)
days
from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge
of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer
pays
the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for
payment
in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after
receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee."
This Court listed the elements
of the offense penalized under B.P. 22, as follows: "(1) the making,
drawing
and issuance of any check to apply to account or for value; (2) the
knowledge
of the maker, drawer or issuer that at the time of issue he does not
have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of
such
check in full upon its presentment; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the
check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or
dishonor
for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause,
ordered
the bank to stop payment."[10]
Justice Luis B. Reyes,
an eminent authority in criminal law, also enumerated the elements of
the
offense defined in the first paragraph of Section 1 of B.P. 22, thus:
1. That a person
makes
or draws and issues any check.
2. That the check
is
made or drawn and issued to apply on account or for value.
3. That the person
who
makes or draws and issues the check knows at the time of issue that he
does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for
the
payment of such check in full upon its presentment.
4. That the check
is
subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds
or
credit, or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the
drawer,
without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.[11]
Crux of the
Petition
Petitioner raised as
defense before the Court of Appeals her lack of actual knowledge of the
insufficiency of funds at the time of the issuance of the checks, and
lack
of personal notice of dishonor to her. The respondent appellate court,
however, affirmed the RTC decision, reasoning that "the maker's
knowledge
of the insufficiency of funds is legally presumed from the dishonor of
his checks for insufficiency of funds. (People vs. Laggui, 171 SCRA
305;
Nieras vs. Hon. Auxencio C. Dacuycuy, 181 SCRA 1)"[12]
The Court of Appeals also stated that "her alleged lack of knowledge or
intent to issue a bum check would not exculpate her from any
responsibility
under B.P. Blg. 22, since the act of making and issuing a worthless
check
is a malum prohibitum."[13]
In the words of the Solicitor General, "(s)uch alleged lack of
knowledge
is not material for petitioner's liability under B.P. Blg. 22."[14]
Lack of Actual Knowledge
of Insufficiency of Funds
Knowledge of insufficiency
of funds or credit in the drawee bank forthe payment of a check upon
its
presentment is an essential element of the offense.[15] There is a prima facie
presumption
of the existence of this element from the fact of drawing, issuing or
making
a check, the payment of which was subsequently refused for
insufficiency
of funds. It is important to stress, however, that this is not a
conclusive
presumption that forecloses or precludes the presentation of evidence
to
the contrary.cralaw:red
In the present case,
the fact alone that petitioner was a signatory to the checks that were
subsequently dishonored merely engenders the prima facie presumption
that
she knew of the insufficiency of funds, but it does not render her
automatically
guilty under B.P. 22. The prosecution has a duty to prove all the
elements
of the crime, including the acts that give rise to the prima facie
presumption;
petitioner, on the other hand, has a right to rebut the prima facie
presumption.[16]
Therefore, if such knowledge of insufficiency of funds is proven to be
actually absent or non-existent, the accused should not be held liable
for the offense defined under the first paragraph of Section 1 of B.P.
22. Although the offense charged is a malum prohibitum, the prosecution
is not thereby excused from its responsibility of proving beyond
reasonable
doubt all the elements of the offense, one of which is knowledge of the
insufficiency of funds.cralaw:red
After a thorough review
of the case at bar, the Court finds that Petitioner Lina Lim Lao did
not
have actual knowledge of the insufficiency of funds in the corporate
accounts
at the time she affixed her signature to the checks involved in this
case,
at the time the same were issued, and even at the time the checks were
subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank.cralaw:red
The scope of petitioner's
duties and responsibilities did not encompass the funding of the
corporation's
checks; her duties were limited to the marketing department of the
Binondo
branch.[17]
Under the organizational structure of Premiere Financing Corporation,
funding
of checks was the sole responsibility of the Treasury Department.
Veronilyn
Ocampo, former Treasurer of Premiere, testified thus:
"Q. Will you please
tell us whose (sic) responsible for the funding of checks in Premiere?
"A. The one in
charge
is the Treasury Division up to the Treasury Disbursement and then they
give it directly to Jose Cabacan, President of Premiere."[18]
Furthermore, the Regional
Trial Court itself found that, since Petitioner Lina Lim Lao was often
out in the field taking charge of the marketing department of the
Binondo
branch, she signed the checks in blank as to name of the payee and the
amount to be drawn, and without knowledge of the transaction for which
they were issued.[19]
As a matter of company practice, her signature was required in addition
to that of Teodulo Asprec, who alone placed the name of the payee and
the
amount to be drawn thereon. This is clear from her testimony:
"Q. Will you please
or will you be able to tell us the condition of this check when you
signed
this or when you first saw this check?
Witness
"A. I signed the
check
in blank. There were no payee. No amount, no date, sir.
"Q. Why did you
sign
this check in blank when there was no payee, no amount and no date?
"A. It is in
order
to facilitate the transaction, sir.
"xxx
xxx
xxx
"COURT
(to witness)
"Q. Is that your
practice?
Witness
"A. Procedure,
Your
Honor.
"COURT
That is
quiet (sic) unusual. That is why I am asking
that
last question
if that is a practice of your office.
"A. As a
co-signer,
I sign first, sir.
"Q. So the
check
cannot be encashed without your signature, co-signature?
"A. Yes, sir.
"Atty. Gonzales
(to witness)
"Q. Now, you said
that
you sign first, after you sign, who signs the check?
"A. Mr.
Teodoro
Asprec, sir.
"Q. Is this
Teodoro
Asprec the same Teodoro Asprec, one of the accused in all these cases?
"A. Yes, sir.
"Q. Now, in the
distribution
or issuance of checks which according to you, as a co-signee, you sign.
Who determines to whom to issue or to whom to pay the check after
Teodoro
Asprec signs the check?
"Witness
A. He is the one.
"Atty. Gonzales
"Q. Mr.
Asprec
is the one in-charge in.are you telling the Honorable Court that
it was Teodoro Asprec who determines to whom to issue the check? Does
he
do that all the time?
"Court
"Q. Does he all
the
time?
"(to witness)
"A. Yes,
Your
Honor.
"Q. So the check
can
be negotiated? So, the check can be good only upon his signing? Without
his signing or signature the check cannot be good?
"A. Yes, Your
Honor.
"Atty. Gonzales
(to witness)
"Q. You made
reference
to a transaction which according to you, you signed this check in order
to facilitate the transaction.I withdraw that question. I will
reform.
"COURT
"(for
clarification
to witness)
"Witness may
answer.
"Q. Only to
facilitate
your business transaction, so you signed the other checks?
"Witness
"A. Yes, Your
Honor.
"Q. So that when
ever
there is a transaction all is needed.all that is needed is for
the
other co-signee to sign?
"A. Yes, Your
Honor.
"COURT
(To counsel)
"Proceed.
"Atty. Gonzales
(to witness)
"Q. Why is it
necessary
for you to sign?
"A. Because most
of
the time I am out in the field in the afternoon, so, in order to
facilitate
the transaction I sign so if I am not around they can issue the check."[20]
Petitioner did not have
any knowledge either of the identity of the payee or the transaction
which
gave rise to the issuance of the checks. It was her co-signatory,
Teodulo
Asprec, who alone filled in the blanks, completed and issued the
checks.
That Petitioner Lina Lim Lao did not have any knowledge or connection
with
the checks' payee, Artelijo Palijo, is clearly evident even from the
latter's
testimony, viz.:
"ATTY. GONZALES:
"Q. When did you
come
to know the accused Lina Lim Lao?
"A. I cannot
remember
the exact date because in their office Binondo,
"COURT: (before
witness
could finish)
"Q. More or less?
"A. It must have
been
late 1983.
"ATTY. GONZALES:
"Q. And that must
or
that was after the transactions involving alleged checks marked in
evidence
as Exhibits B and C?
"A. After the
transactions.
"Q. And that was
also
before the transaction involving that confirmation of sale marked in
evidence
as Exhibit A?
"A. It was also.
"Q. And so you
came
to know the accused Lina Lim Lao when all those transactions were
already
consummated?
"A. Yes, sir.
"Q. And there has
never
been any occasion where you transacted with accused Lina Lim Lao, is
that
correct?
"A. None, sir,
there
was no occasion.
"Q. And your
coming
to know Lina Lim Lao the accused in these cases was by chance when you
happened to drop by in the office at Binondo of the Premier Finance
Corporation,
is that what you mean?
"A. Yes, sir.
"Q. You indicated
to
the Court that you were introduced to the accused Lina Lim Lao, is that
correct?
"A. I was
introduced.
"xxx
xxx
xxx
"Q. After that
plain
introduction there was nothing which transpired between you and the
accused
Lina Lim Lao?
"A. There was
none."[21]
Since Petitioner Lina Lim
Lao signed the checks without knowledge of the insufficiency of funds,
knowledge she was not expected or obliged to possess under the
organizational
structure of the corporation, she may not be held liable under B.P. 22.
For in the final analysis, penal statutes such as B.P. 22 "must be
construed
with such strictness as to carefully safeguard the rights of the
defendant."[22]
The element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds having been proven
to
be absent, petitioner is therefore entitled to an acquittal.
This position finds
support in Dingle vs. Intermediate Appellate Court[23]
where we stressed that knowledge of insufficiency of funds at the time
of the issuance of the check was an essential requisite for the offense
penalized under B.P. 22. In that case, the spouses Paz and Nestor
Dingle
owned a family business known as "PMD Enterprises." Nestor transacted
the
sale of 400 tons of silica sand to the buyer Ernesto Ang who paid for
the
same. Nestor failed to deliver. Thus, he issued to Ernesto two checks,
signed by him and his wife as authorized signatories for PMD
Enterprises,
to represent the value of the undelivered silica sand. These checks
were
dishonored for having been "drawn against insufficient funds." Nestor
thereafter
issued to Ernesto another check, signed by him and his wife Paz, which
was likewise subsequently dishonored. No payment was ever made; hence,
the spouses were charged with a violation of B.P. 22 before the trial
court
which found them both guilty. Paz appealed the judgment to the then
Intermediate
Appellate Court which modified the same by reducing the penalty of
imprisonment
to thirty days. Not satisfied, Paz filed an appeal to this Court
"insisting
on her innocence" and "contending that she did not incur any criminal
liability
under B.P. 22 because she had no knowledge of the dishonor of the
checks
issued by her husband and, for that matter, even the transaction of her
husband with Ang." The Court ruled in Dingle as follows:
The Solicitor General
in his Memorandum recommended that petitioner be acquitted of the
instant
charge because from the testimony of the sole prosecution witness
Ernesto
Ang, it was established that he dealt exclusively with Nestor Dingle.
Nowhere
in his testimony is the name of Paz Dingle ever mentioned in connection
with the transaction and with the issuance of the check. In fact, Ang
categorically
stated that it was Nestor Dingle who received his two (2) letters of
demand.
This lends credence to the testimony of Paz Dingle that she signed the
questioned checks in blank together with her husband without any
knowledge
of its issuance, much less of the transaction and the fact of dishonor.
In the case of
Florentino
Lozano vs. Hon. Martinez, promulgated December 18, 1986, it was held
that
an essential element of the offense is knowledge on the part of the
maker
or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds.
WHEREFORE, on
reasonable
doubt, the assailed decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court (now
the
Court of Appeals) is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one is hereby rendered
ACQUITTING petitioner on reasonable doubt.[24]
In rejecting the defense
of herein petitioner and ruling that knowledge of the insufficiency of
funds is legally presumed from the dishonor of the checks for
insufficiency
of funds, Respondent Court of Appeals cited People vs. Laggui[25]
and Nierras vs. Dacuycuy.[26]
These, however, are inapplicable here. The accused in both cases issued
personal not corporate checks and did not aver lack of
knowledge
of insufficiency of funds or absence of personal notice of the check's
dishonor. Furthermore, in People vs. Laggui[27]
the Court ruled mainly on the adequacy of an information which alleged
lack of knowledge of insufficiency of funds at the time the check was
issued
and not at the time of its presentment. On the other hand, the Court in
Nierras vs. Dacuycuy[28]
held mainly that an accused may be charged under B.P. 22 and Article
315
of the Revised Penal Code for the same act of issuing a bouncing check.
The statement in the
two cases that mere issuance of a dishonored check gives rise to
the presumption of knowledge on the part of the drawer that he issued
the
same without funds does not support the CA Decision. As observed
earlier, there is here only a prima facie presumption which does not
preclude
the presentation of contrary evidence. On the contrary, People vs.
Laggui
clearly spells out as an element of the offense the fact that the
drawer
must have knowledge of the insufficiency of funds in, or of credit
with,
the drawee bank for the payment of the same in full on presentment;
hence,
it even supports the petitioner's position.cralaw:red
Lack of Adequate
Notice of Dishonor
There is another equally
cogent reason for the acquittal of the accused. There can be no prima
facie
evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds in the instant case
because
no notice of dishonor was actually sent to or received by the
petitioner.
The notice of dishonor may be sent by the offended party or the drawee
bank. The trial court itself found absent a personal notice of dishonor
to Petitioner Lina Lim Lao by the drawee bank based on the unrebutted
testimony
of Ocampo "(t)hat the checks bounced when presented with the drawee
bank
but she did not inform anymore the Binondo branch and Lina Lim Lao as
there
was no need to inform them as the corporation was in distress."[29]
The Court of Appeals affirmed this factual finding. Pursuant to
prevailing
jurisprudence, this finding is binding on this Court.[30]
Indeed, this factual
matter is borne by the records. The records show that the notice of
dishonor
was addressed to Premiere Financing Corporation and sent to its main
office
in Cubao, Quezon City. Furthermore, the same had not been transmitted
to
Premiere's Binondo Office where petitioner had been holding office.
Likewise
no notice of dishonor from the offended party was actually sent to or
received
by Petitioner Lao. Her testimony on this point is as follows:
"Atty. Gonzales
"Q. Will you
please
tell us if Father Artelejo Palejo (sic) ever notified you of the
bouncing
of the check or the two (2) checks marked as Exhibit "B" or "C" for the
prosecution?
"Witness
"A. No, sir.
"Q. What do you
mean
no, sir?
"A. I was never
given
a notice. I was never given notice from Father Palejo (sic).
"COURT
(to witness)
"Q. Notice
of
what?
"A. Of the
bouncing
check, Your Honor."[31]
Because no notice of dishonor
was actually sent to and received by the petitioner, the prima facie
presumption
that she knew about the insufficiency of funds cannot apply. Section 2
of B.P. 22 clearly provides that this presumption arises not from the
mere
fact of drawing, making and issuing a bum check; there must also be a
showing
that, within five banking days from receipt of the notice of dishonor,
such maker or drawer failed to pay the holder of the check the amount
due
thereon or to make arrangement for its payment in full by the drawee of
such check.
It has been observed
that the State, under this statute, actually offers the violator "a
compromise
by allowing him to perform some act which operates to preempt the
criminal
action, and if he opts to perform it the action is abated." This was
also
compared "to certain laws[32]
allowing illegal possessors of firearms a certain period of time to
surrender
the illegally possessed firearms to the Government, without incurring
any
criminal liability."[33]
In this light, the full payment of the amount appearing in the check
within
five banking days from notice of dishonor is a "complete defense."[34]
The absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily deprives an accused an
opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, procedural
due process clearly enjoins that a notice of dishonor be actually
served
on petitioner. Petitioner has a right to demand and the basic
postulates
of fairness require that the notice of dishonor be actually sent
to and received by her to afford her the opportunity to avert
prosecution
under B.P. 22.cralaw:red
In this light, the postulate
of Respondent Court of Appeals that "(d)emand on the Corporation
constitutes
demand on appellant (herein petitioner),"[35]
is erroneous. Premiere has no obligation to forward the notice
addressed
to it to the employee concerned, especially because the corporation
itself
incurs no criminal liability under B.P. 22 for the issuance of a
bouncing
check. Responsibility under B.P. 22 is personal to the accused; hence,
personal knowledge of the notice of dishonor is necessary.
Consequently,
constructive notice to the corporation is not enough to satisfy due
process.
Moreover, it is petitioner, as an officer of the corporation, who is
the
latter's agent for purposes of receiving notices and other documents,
and
not the other way around. It is but axiomatic that notice to the
corporation,
which has a personality distinct and separate from the petitioner, does
not constitute notice to the latter.
Epilogue
In granting this appeal,
the Court is not unaware of B.P. 22's intent to inculcate public
respect
for and trust in checks which, although not legal tender, are deemed
convenient
substitutes for currency. B.P. 22 was intended by the legislature to
enhance
commercial and financial transactions in the Philippines by penalizing
makers and issuers of worthless checks. The public interest behind B.P.
22 is thus clearly palpable from its intended purpose.[36]
At the same time, this
Court deeply cherishes and is in fact bound by duty to protect our
people's
constitutional rights to due process and to be presumed innocent until
the contrary is proven.[37]
These rights must be read into any interpretation and application of
B.P.
22. Verily, the public policy to uphold civil liberties embodied in the
Bill of Rights necessarily outweighs the public policy to build
confidence
in the issuance of checks. The first is a basic human right while the
second
is only proprietary in nature.[38]
Important to remember also is B.P. 22's requirements that the check
issuer
must know "at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds
in or credit with the drawee bank" and that he must receive "notice
that
such check has not been paid by the drawee." Hence, B.P. 22 must not be
applied in a manner which contravenes an accused's constitutional and
statutory
rights.cralaw:red
There is also a social
justice dimension in this case. Lina Lim Lao is only a minor employee
who
had nothing to do with the issuance, funding and delivery of checks.
Why
she was required by her employer to countersign checks escapes us. Her
signature is completely unnecessary for it serves no fathomable purpose
at all in protecting the employer from unauthorized disbursements.
Because
of the pendency of this case, Lina Lim Lao stood in jeopardy for
over a decade of losing her liberty and suffering the wrenching
pain
and loneliness of imprisonment, not to mention the stigma of
prosecution
on her career and family life as a young mother, as well as the
expenses,
effort and aches in defending her innocence. Upon the other hand, the
senior
official Teodulo Asprec who appears responsible for the
issuance,
funding and delivery of the worthless checks has escaped criminal
prosecution
simply because he could not be located by the authorities. The case
against
him has been archived while the awesome prosecutory might of the
government
and the knuckled ire of the private complainant were all focused on
poor
petitioner. Thus, this Court exhorts the prosecutors and the police
authorities
concerned to exert their best to arrest and prosecute Asprec so that
justice
in its pristine essence can be achieved in all fairness to the
complainant,
Fr. Artelijo Palijo, and the People of the Philippines. By this
Decision,
the Court enjoins the Secretary of Justice and the Secretary of
Interior
and Local Government to see that essential justice is done and the real
culprit[s] duly-prosecuted and punished.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the questioned
Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the Regional Trial
Court,
is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Lina Lim Lao is ACQUITTED.
The Clerk of Court is hereby ORDERED to furnish the Secretary of
Justice
and the Secretary of Interior and Local Government with copies of this
Decision. No costs.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa, C.J.,
Davide, Jr. and Melo, JJ., concur.
Francisco, J.,
is on leave.
_________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Rollo, pp. 43-48.
[2]
Eighth Division, composed of J. Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, ponente; and
JJ. Emeterio C. Cui, Chairman, and Conchita Carpio Morales.
[3]
Record, pp. 29-30. The RTC decision was penned by Judge Rodolfo G.
Palattao.
[4]
Rollo, pp. 44-45.
[5]
Assistant Fiscal Domingo A. Mendoza resolved, on reinvestigation, to
dismiss
the case insofar as Lina Lim Lao is concerned after finding no
sufficient
evidence to sustain the charges against her. However, an Order dated 28
January 1986 from the then Ministry of Justice reversed the resolution
of Fiscal Mendoza and directed him to withdraw the motion to dismiss he
filed and to proceed with the prosecution of the case on the basis of
the
informations filed in Criminal Case Nos. 84-26967 to 84-26969. See
Private
Respondent's Memorandum, pp. 1-6; Rollo, pp. 138-143.
[6]
Record of the Regional Trial Court, page 1 of folders 1, 2, and 3.
[7]
Ibid., p. 45.
[8]
Petition for Review, pp. 4-7; Rollo, pp. 13-16. TSN citations in the
original.
[9]
Agpalo, Ruben E., Statutory Construction, p. 208, (1990). Citations
omitted.
[10]
Navarro vs. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 639, 643-644, August 2, 1994;
citing
People vs. Laggui, 171 SCRA 305, March 16, 1989.
[11]
Reyes, Luis B., The Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law, Book Two, p. 700,
[1993].
[12]
Rollo, p. 46.
[13]
Ibid.
[14]
Comment of Public Respondent, p. 4; Rollo, p. 62
[15]
Reyes, supra. See also Nitafan, David G., Notes and Comments on the
Bouncing
Checks Law [B.P. Blg. 22], p. 62, [1995]; Antonio Nieva vs. Court of
Appeals,
G.R. Nos. 95796-97, May 2, 1997.
[16]
See, Ricardo Llamado vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 99032, March 26,
1997,
in which the Court acknowledged that the prima facie presumption under
B.P. 22 may be rebutted.
[17]
Ibid., pp. 5-6, September 28, 1989.
[18]
Ibid., pp. 3-4, July 19, 1990.
[19]
Decision of the Regional Trial Court, p. 12; Record of the Court of
Appeals,
p. 66.
[20]
TSN, pp. 7-11, September 28, 1989.
[21]
Ibid., pp. 29-33, June 23, 1987.
[22]
Alfredo L. Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan, People of the Philippines and
Jose
C. Batausa, G.R. No. 116033, p. 19, February 26, 1997.
[23]
148 SCRA 595, March 16, 1987.
[24]
Ibid., pp. 596-597.
[25]
Supra, Footnote No. 10.
[26]
181 SCRA 1, January 11, 1990.
[27]
Supra.
[28]
Supra.
[29]
Decision of the Regional Trial Court, p. 10; Records, p. 160.
[30]
Maximino Fuentes vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109849, p. 9,
February
26, 1997; citing Juan Castillo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals et al.,
G.R.
No. 106472, p. 9, August 7, 1996.
[31]
TSN, pp. 25-26, September 28, 1989.
[32]
See, e.g., E.O. 107, 83 O.G. No. 7, p. 576 [February 16, 1987], and
E.O.
122, 89 O.G. No. 44, p. 6349 [November 1, 1993].
[33]
Nitafan, supra, pp. 121-122.
[34]
Navarro vs. Court of Appeals, supra.
[35]
Rollo, p. 46.
[36]
See Lozano vs. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323, 339-341, December 18, 1996.
[37]
Sections 1 and 14, Article III, Constitution.
[38]
See also Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs.
Philippine
Blooming Mills Co., Inc., 51 SCRA 189, [June 5, 1973]. |