AMBITO vs.

PEOPLE [579 SCRA 69, 2009]

Criminal Law
DOCTRINE: The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making or issuing a worthless check
or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for paymentnot the nonpayment of an obligation. Under B.P.
Blg. 22, the prosecution must also establish that the accused was actually notified that the check was dishonored, and
that he or she failed, within five (5) 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 of the receipt of such notice, a prosecution for
violation of the Bouncing Checks Law cannot prosper. Such notice must be in writing.
FACTS: Spouses Ambito and Crisanto Ambito were charged of multiple Estafa particularly violations of B.P. 22 or
the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law and falsification of commercial documents. They were owners of few business
establishments located in Iloilotwo rural banks and a commercial establishment. Crisanto Ambito was the general
manager in one of the banks. The Sps. Ambito transacted with Pacific Star Inc. (PSI) and paid in cash,checks and
certificates of time deposits to ordered machineries and spare parts allegedly for the use of the loan borrowers of the
bank. However the checks that were issued by spouses were all dishonored due to lack of funds. As to the certificates
of time deposits, two witnesses claimed that they were employees of the spouses in their banks and that they were
forced to sign blank documents. Over time, both banks became insolvent; the Central Bank had to inspect the records
and have the banks be liquidated. It was then found that no records indicated that PSI was given certificates of time
deposits. Pacific star Inc, filed a case against the Sps. Ambito and Crisanto Ambito. In both cases, the RTC and the
Court of Appeals decided in favor of Pacific Star.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Basilio Ambito can be held liable for violating B.P. 22 - NO
2. Whether or not Sps. Ambito and Crisanto Ambito can be held liable for the complex offense of Estafa
through falsification of commercial documents - YES
HELD:
1. Evidence was inadequate to prove co-petitioner Basilio Ambito's guilt beyond reasonable
doubt for seven (7) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. However, his civil liability for the
dishonoured checks is not extinguished.
The elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 are: (1) making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply on account or
for value; (2) 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 the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) 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.
As to the second element, the law provides for a prima facie rule of evidence. A disputable presumption of knowledge
of insufficiency of funds in or credit with the bank is assumed from the act of making, drawing, and issuing a check,
payment of which is refused by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds when presented within 90 days from the
date of issue. However, such presumption does not arise when the maker or drawer pays or makes arrangements for
the payment of the check within five banking days after receiving notice that such check had been dishonored. Absent
proof that the accused received such notice, a prosecution for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law cannot prosper.
The notice of dishonor of a check may be sent to the drawer or maker by the drawee bank, the holder of the check, or
the offended party either by personal delivery or by registered mail. The notice of dishonor to the maker of a check
must be in writing.
In this case, there was no proof that Basilio Ambito was given any written notice either by PSI or by Manila Bank
informing him of the fact that his checks were dishonored. In fact, all that the OSG can aver regarding this matter is
that Basilio Ambito had been notified of the fact of dishonor since PSI filed a collection case against petitioners more
than three (3) years before the same filed the criminal cases and, that, in a trial testimony, Ambito admitted the
checks were returned due to insufficient funds. Ambitos acquittal, however, does not extinguish his civil liability.
2.

THERE IS ESTAFA BY MEANS OF DECEIT, THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF A COMMERCIAL

DOCUMENT.

In this way of committing estafa, it is indispensable that the element of deceit, consisting in the false statement or
fraudulent representation of the accused, be made prior to, or at least simultaneously with, the delivery of the thing by
the complainant. It is also essential that such false pretense was the cause or the very motive of the injured party to
part with his money.
The records would show that PSI was given assurance by petitioners that they will pay the unpaid balance of their

purchases from PSI when the credit certificates of time deposit (CCTDs) with petitioners' banks, the Rural Bank of
Banate, Inc. (RBBI) and/or the Rural Bank of Leon, Inc. (RBLI), and issued under the name of PSI, would be
presented for payment to RBBI and RBLI which, in turn, will pay the amount of deposit stated. Sps. Ambito knew that
no deposits were ever made with RBBI and RBLI under the name of PSI since they did not intend to deposit any
amount to pay for the machineries. The issuance of CCTDs to PSI was not recorded in the books of RBBI and RBLI
and the Deputy Liquidator appointed by the Central Bank of the Philippines even corroborated this finding of
anomalous bank transactions in her testimony during the trial.
The falsification (Art. 171, par. 4) of the CCTDs by the petitioners was a necessary means for the commission of Estafa.
Actually utilizing that falsified public, official or commercial document to defraud another is estafa. But the damage is
caused by the commission of Estafa, not by the falsification of the document. Therefore, the falsification of the public,
official or commercial document is only a necessary means to commit the estafa.