.
|
|
|
|
|
Republic of the
Philippines
JOY LEE RECUERDO, Petitioner, G.R.
No.
133036
-versus-
January 22, 2003 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO-MORALES,
J.:
chan
robles
virtual law library
chan robles virtual law library Before us for Review
is the July 16, 1997 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No.
20577
affirming that rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 150,
Makati City which in turn affirmed that of the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC) of Makati City, Branch 67 convicting Joy Lee Recuerdo
(petitioner)
for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law) on 5
counts. chan
robles virtual law library
chan robles virtual law library From the evidence of the prosecution, the following facts are established: chan robles virtual law library chan robles virtual law library Sometime in the first week of December 1993, Yolanda Floro (Yolanda) who is engaged in jewelry business sold a 3-karat loose diamond stone valued at P420,000.00 to petitioner who gave a downpayment of P40,000.00. In settlement of the balance of the purchase price, petitioner issued 9 postdated checks, 8 of which in the amount of P40,000.00, and 1 in the amount of P20,000.00, all drawn against her account at the Prudential Bank.[1] chan robles virtual law library chan robles virtual law library When Yolanda deposited 8 of the 10 checks to her depository bank, Liberty Savings and Loan Association, only 3, those dated December 25, 1993, January 25, 1994, and February 25, 1994, were cleared. The remaining 5 were dishonored due to the closure of petitioner’s account.[2] chan robles virtual law library chan robles virtual law library Yolanda thus went to petitioner’s dental clinic and advised her to change the dishonored checks to cash. Petitioner promised alright but she welshed on it.[3] chan robles virtual law library A demand letter[4] was thereupon sent to petitioner for her to settle her obligation but she failed to heed the same,[5] hence, the filing of 5 informations[6] against her for violation of B. P. 22 at the Makati MeTC, the accusatory portion of the first of which reads: chan robles virtual law library That sometime in the first week of December, 1993, in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make out, drawn (sic) and issue to YOLANDA G. FLORO to apply on account or for value the check described below: chan robles virtual law library Check No. - 008789 chan robles virtual law library Drawn Against - Prudential
Bank chan
robles virtual law library
Said accused well knowing
that at the time of issue thereof, said account did not have sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment in full of the
face amount of such check upon its presentment, which check when
presented
for payment within ninety (90) days from the date thereof was
subsequently
dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason "ACCOUNT CLOSED" and
despite
receipt of notice of such dishonor, the accused failed to pay said
payee
the face amount of said check or to make arrangement for full payment
within
five (5) banking days after receiving said notice. chan
robles virtual law library
These matters subject
of petitioner’s contention have long been settled in the landmark case
of Lozano v. Martinez[15]
where this Court upheld the constitutionality of B. P. 22: chan
robles virtual law library
As correctly argued by the Solicitor General, however, while due deference is given to the opinion of the Vice-President, the same should properly be addressed to the legislature which is in a better position to review the effectiveness and usefulness of the law.[19] As held in the case of Lozano,[20] it is not for the Court to question the wisdom or policy of the statute. It is sufficient that a reasonable nexus exists between the means and the end. chan robles virtual law library Petitioner further claims that the dishonored checks were not issued for deposit and encashment,[21] nor was there consideration therefor, in support of which she cites her alleged agreement with Yolanda - that she could have the stone appraised to determine the purchase price,[22] and since she found out that it is only worth P160,000.00,[23] there was no longer any need to fund the remaining checks which should be returned to her.[24] Yolanda, however, so petitioner adds, could no longer be reached.[25] Petitioner thus concludes that she had already paid in full the purchase price of the stone, she having paid P40,000.00 cash plus the P120,000.00 proceeds of the three cleared checks.[26] chan robles virtual law library Petitioner’s submission does not lie. Such alleged agreement does not inspire belief. The terms and conditions surrounding the issuance of the checks are irrelevant.[27] chan robles virtual law library "A check issued as an evidence of debt, though not intended for encashment, has the same effect like any other check. It is within the contemplation of B.P. 22, which is explicit that "any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply for an account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank x x x which check is subsequently dishonored x x x shall be punished by imprisonment."[28] chan robles virtual law library "BP 22 does not appear to concern itself with what might actually be envisioned by the parties, its primordial intention being to instead ensure the stability and commercial value of checks as being virtual substitutes for currency. It is a policy that can be easily eroded if one has yet to determine the reason for which checks are issued, or the terms and conditions for their issuance, before an appropriate application of the legislative enactment can be made."[29] chan robles virtual law library Additionally, petitioner argues that as no bank representative testified as to "whether the questioned checks were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds (sic)," such element was not clearly and convincingly proven,[30] hence, the trial court failed to uphold her right to presumption of innocence when she was convicted based on the sole testimony of Yolanda. chan robles virtual law library Whether the checks were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds, or "Account Closed" as alleged in the informations and testified on by Yolanda,[31] petitioner’s argument is untenable. chan robles virtual law library "It is not required much less indispensable, for the prosecution to present the drawee bank’s representative as a witness to testify on the dishonor of the checks because of insufficiency of funds. The prosecution may present, as it did in this case, only complainant as a witness to prove all the elements of the offense charged. She is competent and qualified witness to testify that she deposited the checks to her account in a bank; that she subsequently received from the bank the checks returned unpaid with a notation ‘drawn against insufficient funds’ stamped or written on the dorsal side of the checks themselves, or in a notice attached to the dishonored checks duly given to the complainant, and that petitioner failed to pay complainant the value of the checks or make arrangements for their payment in full within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such checks had not been paid by the drawee bank."[32] chan robles virtual law library Yolanda’s testimony that when she deposited the checks to her depository bank they were dishonored due to "Account Closed"[33] thus sufficed. In fact, even petitioner’s counsel during trial admitted the dishonor, and on that ground.[34] chan robles virtual law library Finally, petitioner
imputes bias on the part of the appellate court when it decided her
petition
for review without the comment of the Office of the Solicitor General.
In fine, the affirmance of petitioner’s conviction is in order. chan robles virtual law library Under Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, imprisonment need not be imposed on those found guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22. Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 issued on February 14, 2001 vests in the courts the discretion to determine, taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case, whether the imposition of fine alone would best serve the interests of justice, or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate the seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise contrary to the imperatives of justice.[35] chan robles virtual law library In the case at bar, this Court notes that no proof, nay allegation, was proffered that petitioner was not a first time offender. Considering this and the correctness of the case, it would best serve the interests of justice if petitioner is just fined to enable her to continue her dental practice so as not to deprive her of her income, thus insuring the early settlement of the civil aspect of the case, not to mention the FINE. chan robles virtual law library WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals finding petitioner JOY LEE RECUERDO guilty of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. chan robles virtual law library In lieu of imprisonment, accused-herein petitioner JOY LEE RECUERDO, is ordered to pay a FINE equivalent to double the amount of each dishonored check subject of the five cases at bar. And she is also ordered to pay private complainant, Yolanda Floro, the amount of Two Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos representing the total amount of the dishonored checks. chan robles virtual law library SO ORDERED. chan robles virtual law library Puno, J., (Chairman),
Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Corona, JJ.,
concur. chan
robles virtual law library
Endnotes:
[2] Id. at pp. 35, 38. chan robles virtual law library [3] Id. at p. 40. chan robles virtual law library [4] From the CA Rollo, it is gathered that the letter of demand was marked as Exhibit 'F.' [5] CA Rollo, pp. 40-42. chan robles virtual law library [6] CA Rollo, pp. 24-28. chan robles virtual law library [7] Penned by Judge Leticia Querubin Ulibarri. chan robles virtual law library [8] Rollo, p. 53. chan robles virtual law library [9] Penned by Judge Erna Falloran Aliposa. chan robles virtual law library [10] Penned by Justice Romeo Callejo, Sr. (now Supreme Court Justice). [11] Rollo, pp. 12-13. chan robles virtual law library [12] Rollo, p. 17. chan robles virtual law library [13] Id. at p. 18. chan robles virtual law library [14] Id. at pp. 17-18. chan robles virtual law library [15] 146 SCRA 323 (1986). chan robles virtual law library [16] Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323 (1986). chan robles virtual law library [17] People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972). chan robles virtual law library [18] Rollo, p. 19. chan robles virtual law library [19] Id. at p. 138. chan robles virtual law library [20] Supra. chan robles virtual law library [21] CA Rollo, p. 66. chan robles virtual law library [22] Id. at p. 69. chan robles virtual law library [23] Id. at p. 72. chan robles virtual law library [24] Id. at p. 73. chan robles virtual law library [25] Id. at p. 74. chan robles virtual law library [26] Rollo, p. 24. chan robles virtual law library [27] Lim v. People, 340 SCRA 497 (2000). [28] Dico, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 305 SCRA 637 (1999). [29] Meriz v. People, G. R. No. 134498, November 13, 2001. [30] Rollo, p. 21. chan robles virtual law library [31] CA Rollo, p. 35. chan robles virtual law library [32] Tadeo v. People, 300 SCRA 744 (1998). chan robles virtual law library [33] CA Rollo, p. 35. chan robles virtual law library [34] Id. at p. 38. chan robles virtual law library [35] So v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 138869, August 29, 2002. chan robles virtual law library |