Cueme v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Felipa B. Cueme, General Manager of Mark-Agro Trading Corporation, engaged in cacao trading, issued fifteen (15) post-dated crossed checks to Helen Simolde, a bank teller and friend, as security for loans with interest. These checks were drawn against the deposit accounts of Mark-Agro Trading Corporation. Procedural History: On May 9, 1990, Simolde deposited the checks, but they were dishonored for being "drawn against insufficient funds" (DAIF). Simolde's demands for payment were unheeded. Consequently, Cueme was charged with fifteen (15) violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22). The trial court found Cueme guilty for all fifteen violations, sentencing her to six (6) months imprisonment and ordering her to pay the face value of the dishonored checks with legal interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the fine in one case (Crim. Case No. 92-5616) to P200,000.00, the maximum allowed by law. The Petition: Cueme assailed her conviction, arguing that she merely signed the checks in blank, that Simolde procured the checks from her secretary and made the entries, and that the checks were not issued for value but only to be shown to prospective investors.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner is guilty of fifteen (15) violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Whether the defense that the checks were issued merely to be shown to prospective investors constitutes a valid defense under BP 22. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court, as modified by the Court of Appeals, is proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction of Felipa B. Cueme for fifteen (15) violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The Court sentenced her to six (6) months imprisonment for each violation and ordered her to pay fines totaling P1,686,000.00, with the fine in Crim. Case No. 92-5616 reduced to P200,000.00. She was also ordered to pay the face value of the dishonored checks, aggregating P2,387,500.00, with legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the petitioner for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22: The Court found petitioner's conviction well-founded. The issue of whether the petitioner issued the checks in payment of obligations or if the complainant procured them from the secretary was a factual question. The appellate court's affirmation of the trial court's findings on witness credibility was given weight, as the trial court was in a better position to observe the witnesses. The Court noted that the petitioner's claim of signing checks in blank was belied by the presence of her signatures at the back of some checks and her countersignatures on others with alterations, indicating issuance either by her or at her instance. Furthermore, admissions made in her counter-affidavit during the preliminary investigation contradicted her trial testimony, and her explanations for these discrepancies were found to be not credible. The Court reiterated that in BP 22 cases, the accused must prove defenses by clear and convincing evidence. On the defense that checks were issued merely to be shown to prospective investors: The Court held that this allegation is not a defense under BP 22. The gravamen of the offense is the act of making or issuing a worthless check or a check dishonored upon presentment. The law considers the mere act of issuing a bad check as malum prohibitum, an act proscribed for being inimical to public welfare, where criminal intent is unnecessary. The Court emphasized that the purpose or terms of issuance do not matter; what is punished is the issuance of a rubber check itself, as any distinction would erode public faith in checks as currency substitutes and cause havoc in trade and banking. The law does not distinguish the kind of checks subject to its provisions. On the penalty imposed: The Court agreed with the modification made by the Court of Appeals regarding the fine in Criminal Case No. 92-5616. Section 1 of BP Blg. 22 mandates that the fine shall be "not less than but not more than double the amount of the check, which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00)." Therefore, the fine for the check with a face value of P220,000.00 was correctly reduced to the maximum of P200,000.00, as fixed by the Court of Appeals, instead of the P220,000.00 imposed by the trial court. The Court also confirmed the aggregate fines and the order to pay the face value of the dishonored checks with legal interest.
Main Doctrine
The act of issuing a worthless check, even if not intended to be encashed or deposited, is a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, as the law punishes the act of issuing a bad check itself, regardless of the purpose or terms of its issuance, because such acts are considered inimical to public welfare and the stability of the banking system.