Ibasco v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Santiago Ibasco was charged with three counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. Blg. 22), the Bouncing Checks Law. The charges stemmed from the issuance of three postdated checks to Manuel Trivinio as payment for animal feed ingredients. Upon presentment for payment on their respective due dates, all three checks were dishonored by the drawee bank due to insufficient funds. The prosecution alleged that Ibasco issued these checks knowing he lacked sufficient funds and failed to deposit the necessary amount to cover them after being notified of their dishonor, causing damage to Trivinio and his heirs. Procedural History: The cases were consolidated and jointly tried before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Gumaca, Quezon, Branch 62. The petitioner pleaded not guilty. After the conclusion of evidence presentation, the petitioner's new counsel filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the checks were issued in Daet, Camarines Norte, not Gumaca, Quezon. The RTC denied this motion, finding that the informations alleged the violations occurred in Gumaca, Quezon, and evidence, including affidavits, supported issuance in that location. The RTC subsequently rendered a decision on November 20, 1991, finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt for all three counts and imposing imprisonment and fines. The petitioner appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's ruling in its decision of August 11, 1994. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the filing of the present petition for review. The Petition: The petitioner filed this petition for review, reiterating arguments made before the Court of Appeals, including the lack of jurisdiction, failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the civil nature of the liability, and the incredulity of the testimony of the prosecution's witness. He specifically argues that the dishonored checks were issued for accommodation or as a guarantee, not for value, and invokes rulings in Magno vs. Court of Appeals and Ministry Circular No. 4 of the Department of Justice. He contends that checks issued prior to August 8, 1984, for guarantee purposes should be governed by the earlier circular, citing Co vs. Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court initially denied the petition but later reinstated it upon motion for reconsideration. The Solicitor General countered that the trial court had jurisdiction as the checks were delivered in Gumaca, Quezon, and that all elements of B.P. Blg. 22 were present, with knowledge of insufficient funds presumed and the guarantee defense being without merit.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court of Gumaca, Quezon, had jurisdiction over the offense. Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Whether the dishonored checks were issued as payment for a pre-existing obligation or merely as a guarantee or for accommodation. Whether the defense of good faith or absence of criminal intent is a valid defense under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and the relevance of the quality of goods to the prosecution.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction of the petitioner for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The Court found that the RTC had jurisdiction, that all elements of the offense were proven, and that the checks were issued as payment for value, not for accommodation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction: The Court reiterated that a violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is a continuing crime. Venue is determined by the place where the elements of making, issuing, or drawing, and delivery of the check are committed. The Court gave weight to the testimony of Maria Negro Trivinio, who categorically stated that the three checks were delivered to their residence in Gumaca, Quezon. This positive assertion, corroborated by the fact that Gumaca, Quezon, was the place of business of the late Manuel Trivinio and the point of delivery of the animal feeds, established the jurisdiction of the RTC of Gumaca, Quezon. The Court emphasized that the place of delivery is of decisive importance in establishing venue for transitory offenses. On the sufficiency of proof and the nature of the offense: The Court affirmed that the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The mere issuance of a dishonored check gives rise to the presumption of knowledge on the part of the drawer that he issued the check without sufficient funds. The Court clarified that B.P. Blg. 22 punishes the act of making and issuing a worthless check, not the non-payment of an obligation. The offenses under B.P. Blg. 22 are mala prohibita, where criminal intent is not necessary; only the violation of the law is inquired into. The defense of good faith or absence of criminal intent is not a valid defense. On whether the checks were issued as payment or for accommodation: The Court distinguished the present case from Magno v. Court of Appeals and Co v. Court of Appeals. It found that the checks were issued in payment of the petitioner's indebtedness for the animal feeds, not for accommodation or as a guarantee. Several circumstances debunked the petitioner's theory of accommodation: the checks were issued after all deliveries were made, their sum equaled the total obligation, a statement of account applied the checks to his accounts, the issuance of multiple postdated checks was inconsistent with his claim of showing them to creditors, and he offered property as replacement after they bounced. These facts indicated the checks were issued for value and for payment. On the defense of good faith/absence of criminal intent and the irrelevance of the quality of goods: The Court held that the quality of the animal feeds was irrelevant to the prosecution of a case involving B.P. Blg. 22. The law was enacted to prohibit the making and circulation of worthless checks. The offense lies in the act of issuing a check that is dishonored upon presentment for payment, irrespective of any defect in the underlying obligation or the quality of the goods for which the check was issued. The defense of good faith or absence of criminal intent is not a valid defense.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a dishonored check constitutes a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, regardless of whether it was issued as payment for an obligation or as a guarantee, provided it was issued for value and not merely for accommodation. The venue for such an offense can be established in any jurisdiction where the elements of making, issuing, or drawing, and delivery of the check are committed, as the offense is considered continuing in nature.