People v. Nitafan
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent K.T. Lim was charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) for issuing a Philippine Trust Company Check No. 117383 dated February 9, 1985, for P143,000.00, knowing he had insufficient funds, which check was subsequently dishonored. The Information also alleged that despite notice of dishonor, the accused failed to pay or make arrangements for payment. Procedural History: Private respondent K.T. Lim filed a motion to quash the Information, arguing that BP 22 was unconstitutional and that the check issued was a memorandum check, akin to a promissory note, thus civil in nature and outside the scope of BP 22. On September 1, 1986, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 52, Manila, granted the motion and quashed the Information, ruling that BP 22 was unconstitutional. The Petition: The Solicitor General, on behalf of the government, filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC's order quashing the Information. The government argued that the constitutionality of BP 22 had already been upheld by the Supreme Court, and the remaining issue was whether a memorandum check falls within the coverage of BP 22.
Issue(s)
Whether a memorandum check is within the coverage of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Whether the issuance of a memorandum check, even with a private understanding that it would not be presented for payment, constitutes a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Order of the respondent Judge dated September 1, 1986, quashing the Information, is SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 52, is directed to proceed with the hearing of the case until terminated.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that a memorandum check is within the coverage of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The Court defined a memorandum check as an ordinary check with the word "memorandum", "memo", or "mem" written across its face, signifying that the maker engages to pay the bona fide holder absolutely, without condition concerning its presentment. It is an evidence of debt against the drawer and has the same effect as an ordinary check, especially when passed to a third person. The Court emphasized that a memorandum check is drawn on a bank and should be distinguished from a promissory note, which is a mere promise to pay. Therefore, it falls under the definition of a "check" as provided in Section 185 of the Negotiable Instruments Law and the general provisions of BP 22, which do not distinguish between types of checks. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the issuance of a memorandum check, even with a private understanding that it would not be presented for payment, constitutes a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The Court explained that the law punishes the issuance of a bouncing check itself, regardless of the purpose for which it was issued, whether as a deposit, a guarantee, or an evidence of a pre-existing debt. Such an act is considered malum prohibitum. The Court further reasoned that allowing private arrangements to exempt check issuances from BP 22 would frustrate the law's purpose of stemming the proliferation of unfunded checks and would erode public faith in checks as currency substitutes, causing havoc in trade and banking communities. The mere act of issuing a worthless check, regardless of the underlying agreement, is punishable.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), the "Bouncing Check Law," applies to memorandum checks. A memorandum check, despite any private understanding that it would not be presented for payment, is still a check drawn on a bank and thus falls within the purview of BP 22. The law punishes the act of issuing a worthless check, regardless of the purpose for which it was issued, whether as a deposit, guarantee, or evidence of debt, as this practice is considered malum prohibitum and is essential to maintaining public faith in checks as currency substitutes.