LIM v.

CA (1995)

Parties to the case: Manuel Lim and Rosita Lim (Petitioners)
Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines (Respondents)

Nature of the case: Criminal case

Facts:

Spouses Manuel and Rosita Lim (Spouses Lim president and treasurer respectively of Rigi Bilt
Industries, Inc. which has been transacting business with LINTON) were charged with 3 counts
of Estafa and 7 counts of violation of the Bouncing Checks Law/BP 22 for allegedly conspiring
together, purchased goods (100 pieces of mild steel plates worth Php51,815; 65 pieces of mild
steel plates worth P63,455; 2,600 Z purlins worth P241,800) from Linton Commercial
Company, Inc. (LINTON), and with deceit issued seven (7) Consolidated Bank and Trust
Company (SOLIDBANK) checks simultaneously with the delivery therefor. When presented to
SOLIDBANK for payment the checks were dishonored for insufficiency of funds to cover the
amounts and despite repeated notice and demand, Spouses Lim failed and refused to pay the
checks or the value of the goods. Testimonies from William Yu Bin (Vpres and Sales Manager
of LINTON) and Salvador Alfonso (signature verifier of SOLIDBANK) further strengthened the
fact that the account did not have sufficient funds. Manuel admitted to having issued seven (7)
checks however still denied that Rigi Bilts account had insufficient funds to cover the amounts
of the presenting the bank ledger showing a balance of P65,752.75. Furthermore, he claimed
that he ordered SOLIDBANK to stop payment because the supplies delivered by LINTON were
not in accordance with the specifications in the purchase orders.

Trial Court held Spouses Lim guilty of Estafa and violation of BP 22.
CA acquitted Spouses Lim of Estafa because the checks were not made in payment of an
obligation contracted at the time of the issuance. However, CA affirmed guilt of violation of BP
22.

Issue/s: Whether the prosecution failed to prove that any of the essential elements of the crime
punishable under B.P. Blg. 22 was committed within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
of Malabon.

Held/Ratio:
NO. The essential element in violating BP 22 of knowingly issuing a worthless check is fulfilled.
Section 1, par. 1, of BP 22 punishes "[a]ny 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 . . ." Given that Spouses Lim had
knowledge of the insufficiency of their funds in SOLIDBANK at the time their checks were
issued, then they clearly violated the aforementioned Section in BP 22.
Under Sec. 191, NIL the term issue means the first delivery of the instrument complete in
form to a person who takes it as a holder. A holder, however, refers to the payee or indorsee
of a bill or note who is in possession of it or the bearer therof. In the present case, the checks
were actually issued and delivered to LINTON in Balut, Navotas but the receipt of LINTONs
Collector (received checks from Spouses Lim) of the checks is not what is contemplated as he
was not the person who could take the checks as holder and neither can the Collector be
considered an agent of LINTON for he was a mere employee.

In addition, Spouses Lim did not overcome the prima facie evidence set down in Sec. 2, BP 22
(The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the bank
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 arrangement 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.) and they also did not make arrangements to pay SOLIDBANK within five (5) days
after receiving notices that the checks had not been paid.

CA decision AFFIRMED.

______________

FACTS:
Spouses Lim were charged with estafa and violations of BP22 for allegedly
purchasing goods from Linton Commercial Corporation and issuing checks
as payment thereof. The checks when presented to the bank were
dishonored for insufficiency of funds or the payment for the checks has
been stopped.

HELD:
It is settled that venue in criminal cases is a vital ingredient of jurisdiction.
It shall be where the crime or offense was committed or any one of the
essential ingredients thereof took place. In determining the proper venue
for these cases, the following are material factsthe checks were issued at
the place of business of Linton; they were delivered to Linton at the same
place; they were dishonored in Kalookan City; petitioners had knowledge of
the insufficiency of funds in their account.

Under Section 191 of the NIL, issue means the first delivery of the
instrument complete in its form to a person who takes it as holder. The
term holder on the other hand refers to the payee or indorsee of a bill or
note who is in possession of it or the bearer thereof. The important place
to consider in the consummation of a negotiable instrument is the place of
delivery. Delivery is the final act essential to its consummation as an
obligation.