EN BANC
[G.R. No. 130038. September 18, 2000.]
ROSA LIM , petitioner, vs . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , respondent.
Zosa & Quijano Law Offices and Abad & Associates for petitioner.
Solicitor General for respondent.
SYNOPSIS
On August 25, 1990, petitioner went to Maria Antonia Seguan's store and bought
various kinds of jewelry worth P300,000.00. In payment thereof, she wrote out a check
dated August 25, 1990, payable to "cash" drawn on Metrobank. On August 26, 1990,
petitioner again went to Seguan's store and purchased jewelry valued at P241,668.00.
Petitioner again issued another check payable to "cash" dated August 16, 1990 drawn on
Metrobank and sent the check to Seguan through a certain Aurelia Nadera. When Seguan
deposited the two checks with her bank, they were returned with a notice of dishonor
because petitioner's account was closed. Upon demand, petitioner promised to pay
Seguan the amounts of the two dishonored checks. She never did. ICAcaH
For twice violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 , petitioner was sentenced by the
Regional Trial Court to one-year imprisonment for each of the two violations and ordered
to pay two nes, each amounting to two hundred thousand pesos. The trial court also
ordered petitioner to return to Maria Antonia Seguan the jewelry received by her or its value
with interest, and to pay moral damages and attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court.
Hence, petitioner led this appeal arguing that the checks were not issued to
Seguan and that they had no pre-existing transaction. The checks were issued to Aurelia
Nadera as mere guarantee and as a security arrangement to cover the value of jewelry she
was to sell on consignment basis.
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 ve (5)
banking days from notice of dishonor. The act is malum prohibitum, pernicious and
inimical to public welfare. 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.
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 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 ve (5) banking days from receipt of
notice of dishonor. B.P. No. 22 was clearly violated. Accordingly, the Court a rmed the
decision of the trial court with modi cation deleting the prison sentences imposed on
petitioner and the awards of moral damages and attorney's fees. The Court imposed on
petitioner only a ne of P200,000.00 in each case with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
insolvency or non-payment.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; B.P. BLG. 22; BOUNCING CHECKS LAW; ELEMENTS. — 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 su cient 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 insu ciency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment." caIEAD
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; TO ESCAPE LIABILITY, ACCUSED MUST PROVE THAT HE HAS
NO KNOWLEDGE THAT HIS FUNDS IN THE BANK WERE NOT SUFFICIENT. — Petitioner
never denied issuing the two checks. She argued that the checks were not issued to
Seguan and that they had no pre-existing transaction. The checks were issued to Aurelia
Nadera as mere guarantee and as a security arrangement to cover the value of jewelry she
was to sell on consignment basis. These defenses cannot save the day for her. The rst
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 insu cient. She did not prove this.
B.P. No. 22, Section 2 creates a presumption juris tantum that the second element prima
facie exists when the rst and third elements of the offense are present. If not rebutted, it
suffices to sustain a conviction.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ACT IS MALUM PROHIBITUM; TERMS AND CONDITIONS
SURROUNDING THE ISSUANCE OF CHECKS ARE IRRELEVANT. — 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 ve (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.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; NEED NOT PROVE 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.
5. ID.; ID.; VIOLATED BY PETITIONER IN CASE AT BAR. — 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
failed to rebut the presumption that she knew her funds were insu cient 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 ve (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.cTESIa
6. ID.; ID.; PENALTY; RULING IN VACA CASE, CITED. — 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 ne of not less than, but not more than
double, the amount of the check which ne shall in no case exceed two hundred thousand
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
pesos, or both such ne and imprisonment at the discretion of the Court." In Vaca v. Court
of Appeals (298 SCRA 658 (1998)) 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 ne 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 the 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 nes imposed for each violation, each
amounting to P200,000.00 are appropriate and sufficient.
7. CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; MORAL DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES; AWARD
THEREOF DELETED FOR LACK OF SUFFICIENT BASIS. — The award of moral damages and
order to pay attorney's fees are deleted for lack of sufficient basis. TSEcAD
DECISION
PARDO , J : p
The case is an appeal from the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals a rming in toto
that of the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City. 2 Both courts found petitioner Rosa Lim guilty of
twice violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 3 and imposing on her two one-year
imprisonment for each of the two violations and ordered her to pay two nes, 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 interest,
to pay moral damages, attorney's fees and costs. 4
We state the relevant facts. 5
On August 25, 1990, petitioner called Maria Antonia Seguan by phone. Petitioner
thereafter went to Seguan's store. She bought various kinds of jewelry — Singaporean
necklaces, bracelets and rings worth P300,000.00. She wrote out a check dated August
25, 1990, payable to "cash" drawn on Metrobank in the amount of P300,000.00 6 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 drawn on Metrobank in the amount of P241,668.00, 7 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 checks. She never did.
On June 5, 1991, 8 an Assistant City Prosecutor of Cebu led with the Regional Trial
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
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, 1990 in the amount of
P241,668.00. The informations read: 9
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 su cient 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 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. ETDaIC
"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 su cient 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.
"Cebu City, Philippines, 30 May 1991." 1 0
Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded "not guilty" in both cases.
After due trial, on December 29, 1992, the trial court rendered a decision in the two
cases convicting petitioner, to wit: 1 1
"WHEREFORE, prosecution having established the guilt of the accused
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
beyond reasonable doubt, judgment is hereby rendered convicting the accused,
Rosa Lim and sentencing her in Criminal Case No. CBU-22127, to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment for a period of ONE (1) YEAR and a ne of TWO
HUNDRED THOUSAND (P200,000.00) PESOS and in Criminal Case No. CBO-
22128, the same penalty of imprisonment for ONE YEAR and ne 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 ling 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.
"SO ORDERED." 1 2
In due time, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. 1 3
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 appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto.
"SO ORDERED." 1 4
Hence, this appeal. 1 5
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
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 return the jewelry received if she would not be able to sell them. 1 6
The appeal has no merit. aAIcEH
The elements of B. P. Blg. 22 are: 1 7
"(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 su cient 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
insu ciency 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 pre-existing transaction. The checks were issued to
Aurelia Nadera as mere guarantee and as a security arrangement to cover the value of
jewelry she was to sell on consignment basis. 1 8 These defenses cannot save the day for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
her. The rst 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 insu cient. She did not
prove this.
B.P. No. 22, Section 2 creates a presumption juris tantum that the second element
prima facie exists when the rst and third elements of the offense are present. 1 9 If not
rebutted, it suffices to sustain a conviction. 2 0
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 ve (5)
banking days from notice of dishonor. 2 1 The act is malum prohibitum, pernicious and
inimical to public welfare. 2 2 Laws are created to achieve a goal intended and to guide and
prevent against an evil or mischief. 2 3 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. 2 4
Unlike in estafa, 2 5 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. 2 6
In United States v. Go Chico , we ruled that in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is,
"has the law been violated?" When dealing with acts mala prohibita 2 7 —
". . . 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 in uence 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 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 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 ve (5) banking days from receipt of
notice of dishonor. B. P. No. 22 was clearly violated. Hoc quidem per quare 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 ne of not less than, but not more than double, the amount of the check which ne
shall in no case exceed two hundred thousand pesos, or both such ne and imprisonment
at the discretion of the Court." 2 8
In Vaca v. Court of Appeals, 2 9 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 ne double the amount of the check issued. We considered the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
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 the trial
court and applied for probation to evade prison term." 3 0 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 nes
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.
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM with modi cation the decision of the Court of Appeals. 3 1
We nd 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 ne of P200,000.00 in each case, with subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency or non-payment not to exceed six (6) months. 3 2 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. DTcASE
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. , C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Purisima, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Quisumbing, J., concurs in the result.
Ynares-Santiago, J., is on leave.
Footnotes
1. In CA-G.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.
3. Bouncing Checks Law, hereinafter referred to as "B.P. 22".
4. Rollo, p. 94.
5. Rollo, p. 12.
6. Rollo, p. 89.
7. Ibid.
8. Rollo, p. 94.
9. Rollo, pp. 80-81.
10. Petition, Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 80-81.
11. Rollo, pp. 93-94.
12. Petition, Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 80-94.
13. Docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 14641.
14. Rollo, pp. 10-20.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
15. Petition for Review, Rollo, pp. 25-39.
16. Rollo, p. 13.
17. Francisco T. Sycip, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125059, March 17, 2000.
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.
21. King v. People, G.R. No. 131540, December 2, 1999.
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.
26. Vaca v. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 658 (1998).
27. United States v. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 128, 131 (1909).
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.
31. In CA-G.R. CR No. 14641.
32. See Article 39, par. 2, Revised Penal Code; Diongzon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
114822, December 23, 1999; Llamado v. Court of Appeals, 337 Phil. 153 (1997).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
