Dico, Jr. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Margie Lim Chao supplied bakery materials to petitioner Domingo Dico, Jr. Dico issued postdated checks as payment. Over twenty-four checks were issued in total. Two cases consolidated before the Supreme Court involved five checks each, totaling ten dishonored checks. Dico requested deferment of deposit for about five months, and the dates on the checks were changed to a common date, August 3, 1987. Upon presentment about a month after maturity, the checks bounced with the reason "Account Closed." Dico refused to redeem the checks despite demand. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branches 14 and 16, convicted Dico for ten counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22). The Court of Appeals affirmed these judgments. The Petition: Dico filed petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the decisions of the Court of Appeals. He argued that the checks were not issued to apply on account or for value but as mere warranty deposits for a new partnership, and that his share in the profits from a joint venture with the complainant had more than paid his obligations.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Domingo Dico, Jr. is liable for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Whether checks issued as a guarantee deposit or subject to a private arrangement are covered by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction of Domingo Dico, Jr. for ten counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
Ratio Decidendi
On the liability for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22: The Court held that petitioner Domingo Dico, Jr. is liable for violations of BP 22. The law penalizes the mere act of issuing a bouncing check, classifying it as a malum prohibitum. The Court reiterated that BP 22 applies even if the checks were issued merely as a deposit or a guarantee. The statute does not distinguish the purpose of the check's issuance, and any private arrangement or understanding between the parties cannot exempt the issuer from penal sanction. The essential elements of the offense, namely the issuance of a check knowing the absence of sufficient funds, and its subsequent dishonor, were established. The petitioner's claim of a joint business venture and set-off of profits was found to be unsubstantiated by evidence. On whether checks issued as a guarantee deposit or subject to a private arrangement are covered by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22: The Court definitively ruled that BP 22 covers checks issued as a guarantee deposit or subject to private arrangements. Citing established jurisprudence, the Court emphasized that the law is all-embracing and makes no distinction regarding the purpose of the check's issuance. The legislative intent was to curb the proliferation of unfunded checks, regardless of any collateral agreements. The fact that the checks were dishonored upon presentment for payment due to "Account Closed" is sufficient to establish liability under BP 22, irrespective of any alleged understanding between the parties that the checks were not to be presented for encashment.
Main Doctrine
A check issued as a guarantee deposit or for any other purpose, if dishonored upon presentment for payment due to insufficient funds or account closure, falls within the purview of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, as the law does not distinguish the purpose of the check's issuance. The act of issuing a bouncing check is a malum prohibitum.