9/21/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 340

VOL.340,SEPTEMBER18,2000 497
Lim vs. People

*
G.R. No. 130038. September 18, 2000.

ROSA LIM, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Criminal Law; Bouncing Checks Law; Section 2 creates a

presumption juris tantum that the second element prima facie
exists when the first and third elements of the offense are present—
B.P. No. 22, Section 2 creates a presumption juris tantum that the
second element prima facie exists when the first and third
elements of the offense are present. If not rebutted, it suffices to
sustain a conviction.

Same; Same; The gravamen of Batas Pambansa No. 22 is the

act of making and issuing a worthless check or one that is
dishonored upon its presentment for payment.—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. And the
accused failed to satisfy the amount of the check or make
arrangement for its payment within five (5) banking days from
notice of dishonor. The act is malum prohibitum, pernicious and
inimical to public welfare. Laws are created to achieve a goal
intended and to guide and prevent against an evil or mischief.
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.

Same; Same; Unlike in estafa, under Batas Pambansa No. 22,

one need not prove that the check was issued in payment of an
obligation, or that there was damage.—Unlike in estafa, under
B.P. No. 22, one need not prove that the check was issued in
payment of an obligation, or that there was damage. The damage
done is to the banking system.

_____________

* EN BANC.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea2e64245b7b59611003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
9/21/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 340

498

498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lim vs. People

Same; Same; Penalty; The penalty of fine only for violation of

BP 22 is to redeem valuable human material and to prevent
unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty of the accused.—In
Vaca v. Court of Appeals, we held that in determining the penalty
to be imposed for violation of B.P. No. 22, the philosophy
underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies. The
philosophy is to redeem valuable human material, and to prevent
unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic
usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order.
There, we deleted the prison sentence imposed on petitioners. We
imposed on them only a fine double the amount of the check
issued.

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Cebu City, Br. 23.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Zosa & Quijano Law Offices for petitioner.
     The Solicitor General for the People.

PARDO,J.:
1
The case is an appeal from the decision of the Court of
Appeals affirming
2
in toto that of the Regional Trial Court,
Cebu City. Both courts found petitioner Rosa 3
Lim guilty of
twice violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 and imposing
on her two one­year imprisonment for each of the two
violations and ordered her to pay two fines, each
amounting to two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00).
The trial court also ordered petitioner to return to Maria
Antonia Seguan, the jewelry received or its value with 4
interest, to pay moral damages,5
attorney’s fees and costs.
We state the relevant facts.
On August 25, 1990, petitioner called Maria Antonia
Seguan by phone. Petitioner thereafter went to Seguan’s
store. She bought

________________

1 In CA­G.R. CR No. 14641, promulgated on October 15, 1996, De la

Rama, J., ponente, Cui and Montenegro, JJ., concurring.
2 In Criminal Case Nos. CBU 22127 and 22128.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea2e64245b7b59611003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
9/21/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 340

3 Bouncing Checks Law, hereinafter referred to as “B.P. 22.”

4 Rollo, p. 94.
5 Rollo, p. 12.

499

VOL.340,SEPTEMBER18,2000 499
Lim vs. People

various kinds of jewelry—Singaporean necklaces, bracelets

and rings worth P300,000.00. She wrote out a check dated
August 25, 1990, payable to
6
“cash” drawn on Metrobank in
the amount of P300,000.00 and gave the check to Seguan.
On August 26, 1990, petitioner again went to Seguan’s
store and purchased jewelry valued at P241,668.00.
Petitioner issued another check payable to “cash” dated
August 16, 1990
7
drawn on Metro­bank in the amount of
P241,668.00, and sent the check to Seguan through a
certain Aurelia Nadera.
Seguan deposited the two checks with her bank. The
checks were returned with a notice of dishonor. Petitioner’s
account in the bank from which the checks were drawn was
closed.
Upon demand, petitioner promised to pay Seguan the
amounts of the two dishonored
8
checks. She never did.
On June 5, 1991, an Assistant City Prosecutor of Cebu
filed with the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, Branch 23
two informations against petitioner. Both informations
were similarly worded, The difference is that in Criminal
Case No. 22128, the bouncing check is Metro Bank Check
No. CLN 094244392 dated August 26,9 1990 in the amount
of P241,668.00. The informations read:

Criminal Case No. 22127—

“The undersigned Prosecutor I of the City of Cebu, accuses ROSA

LIM for VIOLATION OF BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 22
committed as follows:
“That on or about the 20th day of August, 1990, and for
sometime subsequent thereto, in the City of Cebu Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, knowing at the time of issue of the check she does not
have sufficient funds in the drawee bank for the payment of such
check in full upon its presentment, with deliberate intent, with
intent of gain and of causing damage, did then and there issue,
make or draw Metro Bank Check No. 1 CLN 094244391 dated
August 25, 1990 in the amount of P300,000.00 payable to Maria
Antonia

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea2e64245b7b59611003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
9/21/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 340

_____________

6 Rollo, p. 89.
7 Ibid.
8 Rollo, p. 94.
9 Rollo, pp. 80­81.

500

500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lim vs. People

Seguan which check was issued in payment of an obligation of

said accused, but when the said check was presented with the
bank the same was dishonored for reason “Account Closed” and
despite notice and demands made to redeem or make good said
check, said accused failed and refused, and up to the present time
still fails and refuses to do so, to the damage and prejudice of said
Maria Antonia Seguan in the amount of P300,000.00, Philippine
Currency.
“CONTRARY TO LAW.”

Criminal Case No. 22128—

“The undersigned Prosecutor I of the City of Cebu, accuses

ROSA LIM for VIOLATION OF BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 22,
COMMITTED AS FOLLOWS:
“That on or about the 20th day of August, 1990, and for
sometime subsequent thereto, in this City of Cebu, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, knowing at the time of issue of the check she does not
have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of such check in full upon its present­ment, with
deliberate intent, with intent of gain and of causing damage, did
then and there issue, make or draw Metro Bank Check No. CLN­
094244392 dated August 26, 1990 in the amount of P241,668.00
payable to Maria Antonia Seguan which check was issued in
payment of an obligation of said accused, but when the said check
was presented with the bank, the same was dishonored for reason
“Account Closed” and despite notice and demands made to redeem
or make good said check, said accused failed and refused, and up
to the present time still fails and refuses to do so, to the damage
and prejudice of said Maria Antonia Seguan in the amount of
P241,668.00, Philippine Currency.
“CONTRARY TO LAW. 10
“Cebu City, Philippines, 30 May 1991.”

Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded “not guilty” in both

cases,

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea2e64245b7b59611003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
9/21/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 340

After due trial, on December 29, 1992, the trial court

rendered11
a decision in the two cases convicting petitioner,
to wit:

“WHEREFORE, prosecution having established the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt, judgment is hereby rendered
convicting

________________

10 Petition, Annex “A,” Rollo, pp. 80­81.

11 Rollo, pp. 93­94.

501

VOL.340,SEPTEMBER18,2000 501
Lim vs. People

the accused, Rosa Lim and sentencing her in Criminal Case No.
CBU­22127, to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of
ONE (1) YEAR and a fine of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND
(P200,000.00) PESOS and in Criminal Case No. CBO­22128, the
same penalty of imprisonment for ONE YEAR and fine of TWO
HUNDRED THOUSAND (P200,000.00) is likewise imposed.
“The accused is hereby ordered to pay private complainant
Maria Antonia Seguan, the sum of P541,668.00 which is the value
of the jewelries bought by the accused from the latter with
interest based on the legal rate to be counted from June 5, 1991,
the date of the filing of the informations, or return the subject
jewelries; and further to pay private complainant:

“(a) The sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages in compensation

for the latter’s worries with the freezing of her business
capital involved in these litigated transactions;
“(b) The sum of P10,000.00 for attorney’s fees, plus costs.
12
“SO ORDERED.”
13
In due time, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.
On October 15, 1996, the Court of Appeals rendered a
decision, dismissing the appeal in this wise:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED.

The decision
14
appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto. “SO
ORDERED.”
15
Hence, this appeal.
In this appeal, petitioner argues that she never knew
Seguan and much more, had any “transaction” with her.
According to petitioner, she issued the two checks and gave
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea2e64245b7b59611003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
9/21/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 340

them to Aurelia Nadera, not to Seguan. She gave the two

checks to Aurelia Nadera from whom she got two sets of
jewelry, as a “security arrangement” or “guarantee” that
she would return16 the jewelry received if she would not be
able to sell them.

___________________

12 Petition, Annex “A,” Rollo, pp. 80­94.

13 Docketed as CA­G.R. CR No. 14641.
14 Rollo, pp. 10­20.
15 Petition for Review, Rollo, pp. 25­39.
16 Rollo, p. 13.

502

502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lim vs. People

The appeal has no merit. 17

The elements of B.P. Blg. 22 are:

“(1) The making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply

for 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) The 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.”

Petitioner never denied issuing the two checks. She argued

that the checks were not issued to Seguan and that they
had no preexisting transaction. The checks were issued to
Aurelia Nadera as mere guarantee and as a security
arrangement to cover18
the value of jewelry she was to sell on
consignment basis. These defenses cannot save the day for
her. The first and last elements of the offense are
admittedly present. To escape liability, she must prove that
the second element was absent, that is, at the time of issue
of the checks, she did not know that her funds in the bank
account were insufficient. She did not prove this.
B.P. No. 22, Section 2 creates a presumption juris
tantum that the second element prima facie exists when 19
the first and third elements of the offense are20present. If
not rebutted, it suffices to sustain a conviction.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea2e64245b7b59611003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
9/21/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 340

__________________

17 Francisco T. Sycip, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125059, March

17, 2000, 328 SCRA 447.
18 Rollo, p. 13.
19 B.P. 22, Section 2 provides, “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.
20 Francisco T. Sycip, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 17.

503

VOL.346,SEPTEMBER18,2000 503
Lim vs. People

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. And the accused failed to satisfy
the amount of the check or make arrangement for its
payment 21within five (5) banking days from notice of
dishonor. The act is malum 22
prohibitum, pernicious and
inimical to public welfare. Laws are created to achieve a
goal intended
23
and to guide and prevent against an evil or
mischief. Why and to whom the check was issued is
irrelevant in determining culpability. The terms and
conditions 24surrounding the issuance of the checks are also
irrelevant. 25
Unlike in estafa, under B.P. No. 22, one need not prove
that the check was issued in payment of an obligation, or
that there
26
was damage. The damage done is to the banking
system.
InUnited States v. Go Chico, we ruled that in acts mala
prohib­ita, the only inquiry is, “has the27law been violated?”
When dealing with acts mala prohibita —

“.. . it is not necessary that the appellant should have acted with
criminal intent. In many crimes, made such by statutory
enactment, the intention of the person who commits the crime is
entirely immaterial. This is necessarily so. If it were not, the
statute as a deterrent influence would be substantially worthless.
It would be impossible of execution. In many cases, the act
complained of is itself that which produces the pernicious effect

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea2e64245b7b59611003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10
9/21/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 340

the statute seeks to avoid. In those cases the pernicious effect is

produced with precisely the same force and result whether the
intention of the person performing the act is good or bad.”

This case is a perfect example of an act mala prohibita.

Petitioner issued two checks. They were dishonored upon
presentment for payment due to the fact that the account
was closed. Petitioner

__________________

21 King v. People, G.R. No. 131540, December 2, 1999, 319 SCRA 654.
22 Francisco T. Sycip, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 17.
23 Codoy v. Calugay, 312 SCRA 333, 351 (1999).
24 Llamado v. Court of Appeals, 270 SCRA 423 (1997).
25 People v. Hernando, G.R. No. 125214, October 28, 1999, 317 SCRA
617.
26 Vaca v. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 658 (1998).
27 United States v. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 128, 131 (1909).

504

504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lim vs. People

failed to rebut the presumption that she knew her funds

were insufficient at the time of issue of the checks. And she
failed to pay the amount of the checks or make
arrangement for its payment within five (5) banking days
from receipt of notice of dishonor. B.P. No. 22 was clearly
violated. Hoc quidem per quam durum est sed ita lex
scripta est. The law may be exceedingly hard but so the law
is written.
However, we resolve to modify the penalty imposed on
petitioner. B.P. No. 22 provides a penalty of “imprisonment
of not less than thirty days but not more than one year or 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 both28such fine and imprisonment at the
discretion of the Court.” 29
InVaca v. Court of Appeals, we held that in
determining the penalty to be imposed for violation of B.P.
No. 22, the philosophy underlying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law applies. The philosophy is to redeem
valuable human material, and to prevent unnecessary
deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness
with due regard to the protection of the social order. There,
we deleted the prison sentence imposed on petitioners. We
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea2e64245b7b59611003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
9/21/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 340

imposed on them only a fine double the amount of the

check issued. We considered the fact that petitioners
brought the appeal, believing in good faith, that no
violation of B.P. No. 22 was committed, “otherwise, they
would have simply accepted the judgment of the30 trial court
and applied for probation to evade prison term.” We do the
same here. We believe such would best serve the ends of
criminal justice.
Consequently, we delete the prison sentences imposed
on petitioner. The two fines imposed for each violation,
each amounting to P200,000.00 are appropriate and
sufficient.
The award of moral damages and order to pay attorney’s
fees are deleted for lack of sufficient basis.

________________

28 Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, Section 1.

29 Vaca v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 26.
30 Vaca v. Court of Appeals, supra, at p. 664.

505

VOL.340,SEPTEMBER18,2000 505
Lim vs. People

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM 31
with modification the decision
of the Court of Appeals. We find petitioner Rosa Lim
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of violation of
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. We SET ASIDE the sentence of
imprisonment and hereby sentence her only to pay a fine of
P200,000.00 in each case, with subsidiary imprisonment in
case of 32insolvency or non­payment not to exceed six (6)
months. We DELETE the award of moral damages and
attorney’s fees. The rest of the judgment of the trial court
as affirmed by the Court of Appeals shall stand. Costs
against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

          Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug,

Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Purisima, Buena,
Gonzaga­Reyes and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
     Quisumbing, J., In the result.
     Ynares­Santiago, J., On leave.

Judgment affirmed with modification. Sentence of

imprisonment set aside, moral damages and attorney’s fees
deleted.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea2e64245b7b59611003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
9/21/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 340

Note.—What the law punishes is the issuance of a

bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued
nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance—the
mere act of issuing a worthless check being malum
prohibitum. (Llamado vs. Court of Appeals, 270 SCRA 423
[1997])

——o0o——

____________________

31 In CA­G.R. CR No. 14641.

32 See Article 39, par. 2, Revised Penal Code; Diongzon v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 114823, December 23, 1999, 321 SCRA 477; Llamado v.
Court of Appeals, 337 Phil. 153; 270 SCRA 423 (1997).

506

© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea2e64245b7b59611003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10