TERESITA ALCANTARA VERGARA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No.

160328 February 04, 2005 Facts: Facts: Livelihood Corporation (LIVECOR) granted Perpetual Garments Corporation (PERPETUAL) a continuing credit line in the amount of P750,000.00.4The parties agreed that for each availment from the line, PERPETUAL would execute a promissory note and issue postdated checks corresponding to the amount of the loan. Petitioner, in her capacity as Vice President and General Manager of PERPETUAL, signed the credit agreement and all the postdated checks. One of the checks issued and signed by petitioner was Check No. 019972 for P150,000.00. When deposited on 5 December 15, 1988, the check was dishonored for insuffiency of funds. On the same month, LIVECOR verbally informed petitioner of the dishonor of the check. LIVECOR charged petitioner with violation of BP 22. The trial court rendered decision finding petitioner guilty of violating BP 22 but not civilly liable to LIVECOR. Dissatisfied, the petitioner and LIVECOR appealed the case to the CA. The appellate court dismissed the appeals and affirmed trial court s decision. The motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, appeal to SC.

EVANGELINE LADONGA VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 141066. February 17, 2005

In 1989, spouses Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga became Alfredo Oculam s regular customers in his pawnshop business. Sometime in May 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained a P9,075.55 loan from him, guaranteed by United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) Check No. 284743, post dated to July 7, 1990 issued by Adronico; sometime in the last week of April 1990 and during the first week of May 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained an additional loan of P12,730.00, guaranteed by UCPB Check No. 284744, post dated to July 26, 1990 issued by Adronico; between May and June 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained a third loan in the amount of P8,496.55, guaranteed by UCPB Check No. 106136, post dated to July 22, 1990 issued by Adronico; the three checks bounced upon presentment for the reason CLOSED ACCOUNT ; when the Ladonga spouses failed to redeem the check, despite repeated demands, he filed a criminal complaint against them. While admitting that the checks issued by Adronico bounced because there was no sufficient deposit or the account was closed, the Ladonga spouses claimed that the checks were issued only to guarantee the obligation, with an agreement that Oculam should not encash the checks when they mature; and, that petitioner is not a signatory of the checks and had no participation in the issuance thereof. The RTC rendered a joint decision finding the Ladonga spouses guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating B.P. Blg. 22. Petitioner brought the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner who was not the drawer or issuer of the three checks that bounced but her coaccused husband under the latter s account could be held liable for violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 as conspirator. Ruling: The conviction must be set aside. Article 8 of the RPC provides that a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To be held guilty as a coprincipal by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. The overt act or acts of the accused may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan. In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove that petitioner performed any overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. Apparently, the only semblance of overt act that may be attributed to petitioner is that she was present when the first check was issued. However, this inference cannot be stretched to mean concurrence with the criminal design. Conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence. Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy. Even knowledge, acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.

Issue: whether or not the petitioner should be convicted of violation of BP 22. Ruling: Petitioner is ACQUITTED. No proof of receipt by petitioner of any notice of non-payment of the checks was ever presented during the trial. if there is no proof as to when such notice was received by the drawer, then the presumption or prima facie evidence provided in Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 cannot arise, since there would simply be no way of reckoning the crucial 5-day period. The presumption or prima facie evidence of knowledge by the petitioner of the insufficiency of funds or credit at the times she issued the checks did not arise. Even assuming that petitioner was properly notified of the dishonor, still, the prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds would not arise since it appears that an arrangement for the payment of the bounced check was entered into by the parties where petitioner replaced the bounced check with 6 checks, each for P25,000.00, or a total of P150,000.00. For more than 2 years after the dishonor, LIVECOR accepted the payments made by PERPETUAL without complain. Although petitioner has not yet fully paid the loan, it cannot be denied that the previous payments fully covered the value of the dishonored check. It would be unjust to penalize her for the issuance of said check which has been satisfied 2 years prior to the filing of the criminal charge against her.

JAIME DICO vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 141669 February 28, 2005 Facts: Petitioner is a credit card holder of Equitable Banking Corp. In payment for his obligation to the complainant card network, he issued check nos. 369403, 369404 and 369380 drawn against Far East Bank in the total amount of P596,736.27. When the said check were presented with the said bank, the same was dishonored for reason ACCOUNT CLOSED and despite notice and demands made to redeem or make good the said check, petitioner failed and refused to do so. Petitioner was charged with 3 counts of violation of BP22 at the MTCC of Cebu. The MTCC found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of BP22. Petitioner appealed case to RTC which affirmed the decision of the MTCC. By way of petition for review, Dico went up to the CA. The CA affirmed the decision of the MTCC in part acquitting Dico in his obligation covering check no. 369380. Hence, petition to the SC. Issue: whether or not all elements to prove BP 22 were present in the case to convict accused. Ruling: Petitioner ACQUITTED. The essential elements of the offense penalized under Section 1, B.P. Blg. 22 are as follows: (1) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply to 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 or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such 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. The prosecution has the burden to prove all the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to do so will necessarily result in exoneration. First and second element was not present in the case. Check 369043 identified in court was different from that described in that information. Since the identity of the check enters into the first essential element of the offense under Section 1 of B.P. 22, that is, that a person makes, draws or issues a check on account or for value, and the date thereof involves its second element, namely, that at the time of issue the maker, drawer or issuer knew that he or she did not have sufficient funds to cover the same, there is a violation of petitioner s constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the offense charged in view of the aforesaid variance, thereby rendering the conviction for the third count fatally defective. FEBTC Check No. 369404, petitioner did not receive the notice of dishonor contemplated by the law. There was no valid notice of dishonor to speak of. The term "notice of dishonor" denotes that a check has been presented for payment and was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank. This means that the check must necessarily be due and demandable because only a check that has become due can be presented for payment and subsequently be dishonored. A postdated check cannot be dishonored if presented for payment before its due date. In this case, the demand letter was sent 4 days before the date of the check and 6 days before said check was deposited. Facts:

VICTOR ONGSON, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. [G.R. No. 156169. August 12, 2005]

Private complainant Samson Uy extended loans to petitioner and as payment therefor, he issued to Uy 8 post dated checks (checks no. 119789, 492837, 492615, 492319, 492482, 492581, 492666, 492580). Upon presentment, the checks were dishonored and despite demands, petitioner failed to make good the bounced checks. The RTC declared Ongson guilty of violations of BP 22 on 8 counts. Petitioner appealed to the CA but the appellate court affirmed the conviction of the petitioner. Issue: whether or not the conviction of the petitioner was proper. Ruling: petition granted in part. Petitioner should be acquitted in Check No. 492615 and 492580, because the date of the check and the amount thereof as stated in the Informations vary with the exhibits submitted by the prosecution, which inconsistencies violate petitioner's constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the offense charged and justifies the acquittal of the accused. With respect to the remaining charges, the judgment of conviction should be affirmed. The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner received money in various amounts from private complainant. Whether the amounts were loans or investment in the business of petitioner, the checks were issued for valuable consideration. Either way, petitioner is under obligation to pay private complainant. Interestingly, while petitioner denied existence of consideration, he at the same time admitted that his obligation was P358,872.72 and not P582,149.72. Petitioner through counsel, admitted receipt of private complainant's demand letters sent via registered mail, informing him of the dishonor of the checks and the reason therefor; and demanding that the value of the check be paid in cash. That only a representative of petitioner signed the registry return receipt in the case at bar is of no consequence because of the unqualified admission by the latter that he received private complainant's demand letter with notice of dishonor. Said admission binds him considering that he never denied receipt of the notice of dishonor. Neither did he contradict said judicial admission of receipt of the notice nor alleged a palpable mistake in making the same. Thus, petitioner's receipt of the notice of dishonor without paying the value of the checks or making arrangements for its payment within five (5) days from receipt of said notice, established the prima facie presumption that he had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds in or credit with the bank at the time of the issuance of the checks. Failing to overcome this legal presumption, the findings of the courts below must be sustained.

VICTOR QUE vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT G.R. No. 75217-18 September 21, 1987

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION vs. NATHANIEL M. GROSPE, Presiding Judge, Branch 44, Regional Trial Court of Pampanga and MANUEL PARULAN, respondents. G.R. Nos. L-74053-54 January 20, 1988

Facts: Facts: Manuel Parulan is an authorized wholesale dealer of San Miguel Corporation (SMC) in Bulacan. On 13 June 1983, parulan issued Planters Development Bank [PDB] Check 19040865 in the sum of P86,071.20 in favor of SMC, which was received by the SMC Supervisor at Guiguinto, Bulacan. The check was forwarded to the SMC Regional Office at San Fernando, Pampanga, where it was delivered to and received by the SMC Finance Officer, who then deposited the check with the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), San Fernando Branch, which is the SMC depository bank. On 8 July 1983, the SMC depository bank received a notice of dishonor of the said check for "insufficiency of funds" from the PDB, the drawee bank in Santa Maria, Bulacan. On 18 June 1983, Parulan likewise issued PDB Check 19040872 in the amount of P11,918.80 in favor of SMC, which was received also by the SMC Supervisor at Guiguinto, Bulacan, as direct payment for the spot sale of beer. That check was similarly forwarded by the SMC Supervisor to the SMC Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga, where it was delivered to the Finance Officer thereat and who, in turn, deposited the check with the SMC depository bank in San Fernando, Pampanga. On 8 July 1983, the SMC depository bank received a notice of dishonor for "insufficiency of funds" from the drawee bank, the PDB, in Santa Maria, Bulacan. In Criminal Case 2800 of the RTC Pampanga, he was charged with Violation of the BP22. In Criminal Case 2813 of the same Court, Parulan was charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code for having made out a check on 18 June 1983 in the sum of P11,918.80 in favor of SMC. The two cases were tried jointly, the witnesses for both prosecution and defense being the same for the two suits. The trial court, through the Hon Nathaniel M. Grospe rendered judgment dismissing the cases for lack of jurisdiction, and ordered the cancellation of the bail bond posted by the accused. Hence, the special civil action for certiorari. Issue: whether or not Ruling: Decision of RTC is set aside and is hereby ordered to reassume jurisdiction over the cases. Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check may be a transitory or continuing offense. Its basic elements of deceit and damage may arise independently in separate places. In this case, it did and jurisdiction may be conferred in any of the two places wherein the two elements arose. For while the subject check was issued in Bulacan, it wasn't completely drawn thereat, but in Pampanga. What is of decisive importance is the delivery thereof. The delivery of the instrument is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation. For although the check was received by the SMC supervisor in Bulacan, that was not delivery in the contemplation of law. The rule is that the issuance as well as the delivery of the check must be to a person who takes it as a holder, which means the payee or indorser of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof. The said representative had to forward the check to the SMC regional office, who thereafter forwarded it to the Finance Officer and later on to the depository bank.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.CECILIA QUE YABUT and HON. JESUS DE VEGA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch II G.R. No. L-42847 April 29, 1977 Facts: Cecilia Que Yabut, as treasurer of the Yabut Transit Line issued Check Nos. CB-19035 B, CB-190396 and CB-190397, in the total sum of P6,568.94, drawn against the Merchants Banking Corporation, payable to Freeway Tires Supply, in payment of articles and merchandise delivered to and received by said accused, knowing that at the time there was no or insufficient funds in the said Merchants Banking Corporation, and upon presentation of the said checks to the bank, the checks were dishonored and inspite of repeated demands by the owner of the Freeway Tires Supply to deposit the necessary funds but to no avail. Instead of entering a plea, Yabut filed a motion to quash and said motion was opposed by the adverse party. The RTC judge quashed the information on ground of improper venue. Husband of Cecilia Yabut, Geminiano stood charged for the crime of Estafa