Cruz v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Andrea Mayor, a businesswoman engaged in lending and rediscounting checks, had previous transactions with petitioner Roberto Cruz, involving checks that bounced but were subsequently paid in cash. On March 15, 1989, petitioner borrowed P176,000.00 from Mayor. On April 6, 1989, Mayor delivered the amount, and petitioner issued Premiere Bank Check No. 057848, postdated April 20, 1989, for the same amount. Upon presentment when it matured, the check was dishonored for "account closed." Petitioner promised to pay in cash but failed to do so, leading to the filing of an information for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22). Procedural History: The trial court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to one year imprisonment and to indemnify Mayor for P176,000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner sought reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the appellate court committed reversible error and grave abuse of discretion by affirming the trial court's findings based on surmises, and by holding him liable under BP 22 despite the payee's alleged knowledge that his account was closed. He also argued that the appellate court erred in holding his appeal devoid of merit due to a claimed "complete turnabout."
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner is liable for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for issuing a check knowing he does not have credit with the drawee bank, regardless of whether it was intended for circulation but merely as evidence of indebtedness. Whether the payee's knowledge of the closed account negates liability under BP 22. Whether a change in defense theory on appeal is permissible.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding petitioner Roberto Cruz liable for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. The petition was dismissed, and the questioned decision was affirmed en toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of liability under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for issuing a check as evidence of debt: The Court held that a check issued as evidence of debt, even if not intended for circulation or negotiation, falls within the purview of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. The law, in its plain text, does not distinguish the purpose for which a check is issued, whether for payment of an obligation or as a guarantee. The gravamen of the offense under BP 22 is the act of issuing a worthless check, which is considered malum prohibitum. The Court reiterated that the legislative intent behind BP 22 was to make its prohibition all-embracing, specifically to prevent checks from becoming "useless scraps of paper" and to restore respectability to checks. Therefore, the fact that the check was issued merely as a memorandum of indebtedness does not exempt the petitioner from liability. The Court reiterated that the issuance of a bouncing check is malum prohibitum, meaning the act itself is penalized by law, irrespective of criminal intent. The Court's jurisdiction in cases brought from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing errors of law, and its findings of fact are considered conclusive unless totally devoid of support in the record. In this case, the findings of fact by the lower courts were sustained. On the issue of the payee's knowledge of the closed account: The Court ruled that the knowledge of the payee regarding the insufficiency or lack of funds of the drawer with the drawee bank is immaterial to the offense penalized by BP 22. Deceit is not an essential element of the offense, and malice and intent in the issuance of the check are inconsequential. The law punishes the act of issuing a bouncing check, regardless of the payee's awareness of the account's status. Furthermore, even restricted or cross checks are considered negotiable instruments covered by BP 22. On the issue of changing defense theory on appeal: The Court held that the petitioner could not be allowed to change his theory of defense on appeal. Initially, the petitioner denied issuing the check. However, on appeal to the Court of Appeals, he admitted issuing the check but claimed it was not intended for circulation. The Court emphasized that when a party adopts a certain theory and the case is tried and decided upon that theory, he cannot change it on appeal, as doing so would be unfair and offensive to basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process. The Court found that the petitioner's "complete turnabout" was not a valid basis for his appeal.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a check, even if intended merely as evidence of debt or a guarantee, and subsequently dishonored due to an account closure or insufficient funds, constitutes a violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. The law punishes the act of issuing a worthless check, irrespective of the purpose or terms of its issuance, as deceit is not an essential element of the offense.