Ong v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Remigio S. Ong, a businessman, approached complainant Marcial de Jesus for a loan of P130,000.00 to pay his employees' 13th-month pay. De Jesus obliged by issuing a Producers Bank check payable to Ong's company, Master Metal Craft. In return, Ong issued a post-dated FEBTC check for the same amount, due on January 16, 1993, to ensure repayment. Procedural History: Ong's FEBTC check was deposited by De Jesus on May 26, 1993, and was dishonored by FEBTC for lack of sufficient funds (DAIF). Despite verbal notifications and a formal written demand on September 10, 1993, Ong failed to make arrangements for payment or replacement. Consequently, De Jesus filed a case against Ong. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Ong guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 1, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Check Law), sentencing him to six (6) months and one (1) day of imprisonment, a fine of P150,000.00, and to pay civil indemnity of P130,000.00. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Ong's appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the RTC's decision in toto. The Petition: Petitioner Ong filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45, assailing the CA's decision. He argued that the FEBTC check was not issued "to apply on account or for value" as it was contingent on the loan not being extended or used, and that the prosecution failed to prove the encashment of the Producers Bank check. He also contended that a mere photocopy of the demand letter, without proof of loss of the original, was inadmissible evidence, as proof of demand is a jurisdictional requirement.
Issue(s)
Whether the FEBTC check was issued "to apply on account or for value" within the contemplation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Whether a mere photocopy of the demand letter, without proof of loss of the original, is admissible evidence in a prosecution for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with the modification that the sentence of imprisonment was deleted. Petitioner was ordered to pay a fine of P150,000.00, civil indemnity of P130,000.00, and the costs of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the FEBTC check was issued "to apply on account or for value": The Court reiterated that what Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check, not the purpose for which it was issued or the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is considered malum prohibitum. The gravamen of the offense is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon presentation for payment; it is not the non-payment of an obligation that the law punishes. The law is not intended to coerce a debtor to pay his debt but to prohibit the circulation of worthless checks. The argument that the check was issued without consideration is inconsequential, as the law invariably declares the mere act of issuing a worthless check as malum prohibitum. In actions based upon a negotiable instrument, consideration is imported and presumed from the fact that it is a negotiable instrument. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the argument surrounding the issuance of checks need not be looked into, since the law clearly provides that the mere issuance of any kind of check, regardless of the intent of the parties, but which check was subsequently dishonored, makes the person who issued the check liable. The intent of the law is to curb the proliferation of worthless checks and to protect the stability and integrity of checks as a means of payment of obligation. On the issue of the admissibility of a photocopy of the demand letter: The Court found the petitioner's contention regarding the admissibility of the photocopy of the demand letter to be unavailing. The trial court had satisfactorily ruled on this issue, noting that the original demand letter had been shown and identified in court by the complainant, Marcial De Jesus, during his direct and cross-examination. The trial court had the advantage of observing the witness and was in a better position to assess his credibility. The Supreme Court is not inclined to disturb such findings. It is well-settled in criminal jurisprudence that where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, the appellate court will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court. The trial court had seen the original copy of the demand letter and was satisfied with its identification by the complainant.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a worthless check, regardless of the purpose or terms of its issuance, is considered malum prohibitum under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Prejudice or damage is not a prerequisite for conviction, and the law punishes the act of issuing a worthless check, not the non-payment of an obligation.