Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bax vs. People
Bax vs. People
*
G.R. No. 149858. September 5, 2007.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
285
VOL. 532, SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 285
Same; Same; Under B.P. 22, the prosecution must prove not
only that the accused issued a check that was subsequently
dishonored but must also establish that the accused was actually
notified that the check was dishonored, and that he or she failed,
within five banking days from receipt of the notice, to pay the
holder of the check the amount due thereon or to make
arrangement for its payment.— While it is true that ILYON,
through its president, Benedict Tan, asked petitioner to pay the
dishonored checks, however, such kind of notice is not the one
required by B.P. 22. Under B.P. 22, the prosecution must prove
not only that the accused issued a check that was subsequently
dishonored. It must also establish that the accused was actually
notified that the check was dishonored, and that he or she failed,
within five banking days from receipt of the notice, to pay the
holder of the check the amount due thereon or to make
arrangement for its payment. Absent proof that the accused
received such notice, a prosecution for violation of the Bouncing
Checks Law cannot prosper.
Same; Same; Where the maker did not receive a written notice
of dishonor of the checks, obviously, there is no way of determining
when the 5-day period prescribed in Section 2 of B.P. 22 would
start and end.—Since petitioner did not receive a written notice of
dishonor of the checks, obviously, there is no way of determining
when
286
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
1
Challenged in the 2
instant Petition for Review on Certiorari
are the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated December
19, 2000 and its Resolution dated September 5, 2001 in CA-
G.R. CR No. 23356 affirming in toto the Decision dated
December 14, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 70, Pasig City declaring petitioner guilty of nine (9)
counts of violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22),
otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law.
_______________
287
said accused well knowing that at the time of issue he 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 could have been dishonored for
insufficiency of funds had not the accused, without any valid
reason, ordered the bank to “Stop Payment,” and despite receipt
of notice of such dishonor, the accused failed to pay said payee the
face amount of the said check or made arrangement for full
payment thereof within five (5) banking days after receiving
notice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
_______________
288
289
SO ORDERED.”
4
On appeal, the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 23356
rendered its Decision on December 19, 2000 affirming in
toto the RTC Decision. Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration but it was denied by the appellate court in
a Resolution dated September 5, 2001.
Hence the instant petition.
The basic issue is whether the prosecution was able to
prove the guilt of petitioner by evidence beyond reasonable
doubt.
The Solicitor General contends that the Court of Appeals
did not err in affirming the RTC Joint Decision sustaining
that of the MeTC because all the elements of violation of
B.P. 22 are present in each case. Petitioner, on the other
hand, maintains that since he did not receive a written
notice of dishonor, not all the elements of the offense have
been established by the prosecution. Accordingly, he should
be acquitted.
We agree with petitioner.
It is settled that factual findings of the trial court are
accorded great weight, even finality on appeal, except when
it has failed to appreciate certain facts and circumstances
which, if taken into account, would materially5 affect the
result of the case. This exception is present here.
Section 1 of B.P. 22 provides:
_______________
4 From the Decision of the RTC in Criminal Cases Nos. 14355 to 14363.
5 Vergara v. People, G.R. No. 160328, February 4, 2005, 450 SCRA 495.
290
_______________
6 Marigomen v. People, G.R. No. 153451, May 26, 2005, 459 SCRA 169.
291
_______________
292
10
In Domagsang v. Court of Appeals, we held that the notice
of dishonor of a check to the maker must be in writing. A
mere oral notice to the drawer or maker of the dishonor of
his check is not enough, thus:
“While, indeed, Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 does not state that the
notice of dishonor be in writing, taken in conjunction, however,
with Section 3 of the law. i.e., “that where there are no sufficient
funds in or credit with such drawee bank, such fact shall always
be explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal,” a mere
oral notice or demand to pay would appear to be
insufficient for conviction under the law. The Court is
convinced that both the spirit and letter of the Bouncing Checks
Law would require for the act to be punished thereunder not only
that the accused issued a check that is dishonored, but that
likewise the accused has actually been notified in writing of the
fact of dishonor. The consistent rule is that penal statutes have to
be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the
accused.” (Emphasis supplied)
_______________
293
doubt, since 12
only preponderance of evidence is required in
civil cases.
We however modify the award of petitioner’s civil
liability to ILYON from P417,500.00 to P425,250.00. In
Criminal Case No. 14354, petitioner was acquitted by the
RTC since the reason for the dishonor was his “stop
payment order” to the drawee bank to enable VACHMAN
to reconcile its accounts with ILYON. Hence, only the face
value of the remaining nine (9) checks should be included
in the computation of petitioner’s civil liability. Each check
has a face value of P47,250.00 which, if we multiply by
nine, yields P425,250.00.
WHEREFORE, we REVERSE the Decision of the Court
of Appeals. Petitioner Francisco M. Bax is acquitted in
Criminal Cases Nos. 14355 to 14363 for violations of B.P.
22 for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. He is ordered, however, to pay the
offended party, ILYON, the face value of the nine (9)
checks in the total amount of P425,250.00 with 12%
interest per annum from the filing of the Informations until
fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
_______________
12 Rico v. People, G.R. No. 137191, November 18, 2002, 392 SCRA 61.
294
——o0o——