Abarquez v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Felicito Abarquez was charged with five counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), the Bouncing Checks Law. The charges stemmed from the issuance of five checks to Fertiphil Corporation, which were subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank, Republic Planters Bank, for having been drawn against insufficient funds or uncollected deposits. The checks, issued between June and July 1986, totaled P844,500.00. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 41, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt for all five counts of violating BP 22, sentencing him to one year imprisonment for each case and ordering him to pay the total amount of P844,500.00. The petitioner appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence by deleting the imprisonment and imposing a fine of P1,700,600.00, which was double the total amount of the checks, citing Administrative Circular No. 12-2000. The Petition: Petitioner seeks relief from this Court, raising four issues. He argues that one check was dishonored for being drawn against uncollected deposit, not insufficient funds, and thus not punishable under BP 22. He also claims payment was made for two other checks before notice of dishonor. For the remaining two checks, he contends they were not issued for value but as security pending reconciliation of accounts. Furthermore, he challenges the fine imposed by the Court of Appeals, arguing it exceeds the P200,000.00 limit set by BP 22. The petition thus seeks acquittal in some cases and modification of penalties in others.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in convicting petitioner in Criminal Case No. D-8137 though the check subject thereof was dishonored for being drawn against uncollected deposit (DAUD) and not for being drawn against insufficient funds (DAIF) or closed account (CA) which are the only punishable acts under BP 22. Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in convicting petitioner in Criminal Case Nos. D-8135 and D-8136 despite the unrebutted evidence showing payment thereof after the dishonor by the drawee bank. Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in convicting the accused in Criminal Case Nos. D-8176 and D-8177. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in imposing the penalty of fine in the amount of One Million Seven Hundred Thousand Six Hundred pesos (P1,700,600.00) which is double the total amount of the five checks despite the express provision of BP 22 that the fine imposed shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand pesos (Sec. 1, BP 22).
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner was acquitted in Criminal Cases Nos. D-8135 and D-8136. He was found guilty in Criminal Case No. D-8137 and sentenced to pay a fine of P104,400.00 and to indemnify Fertiphil Corporation in the amount of P52,200.00. In Criminal Case No. D-8176, he was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of P200,000.00 and to indemnify Fertiphil Corporation in the amount of P340,000.00. In Criminal Case No. D-8177, he was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of P200,000.00 and to indemnify Fertiphil Corporation in the amount of P372,000.00. Subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency was ordered.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dishonor for uncollected deposit (DAUD) vs. insufficient funds (DAIF) in Criminal Case No. D-8137: The Court clarified that a check dishonored for DAUD can still fall under the purview of BP 22 if the bank, at its discretion, dishonors it. The records showed that Check No. 2956662 was dishonored for DAIF, not DAUD, as petitioner's account had insufficient funds at the time of presentment. The Court reiterated that the bank may dishonor a check if drawn against uncollected deposits, and in such a case, the drawer could be held liable for violation of BP 22. Therefore, the conviction in this case was sustained. On the issue of payment after dishonor in Criminal Cases Nos. D-8135 and D-8136: The Court found that petitioner had paid the face value of the checks in these cases before any formal written demand was made by Fertiphil Corporation. In Criminal Case No. D-8135, payment was made via telegraphic transfer on July 28, 1986, while the demand letter was dated September 27, 1986. In Criminal Case No. D-8136, payment was made by demand draft and telegraphic transfer on July 17, 1986, also before the demand letter. The Court emphasized that payment of the value of the check within five banking days after receiving notice of dishonor is a complete defense, and since payment was made even before formal demand, petitioner could not be held liable under BP 22 for these two cases. On the issue of checks issued as security and not for value in Criminal Cases Nos. D-8176 and D-8177: The Court held that the purpose or reason for the issuance of a check is inconsequential in determining criminal culpability under BP 22. The law punishes the act of issuing a bouncing check, regardless of whether it was intended for payment or as security. The Court cited Ong v. People and Meriz v. People, stating that the gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a worthless check, and the stability of checks as substitutes for currency is paramount. Therefore, the conviction for these cases was upheld. On the issue of the penalty of fine imposed by the Court of Appeals: The Court agreed that the Court of Appeals erred in fixing the fine amount for Criminal Cases Nos. D-8176 and D-8177. Section 1 of BP 22 limits the fine to not more than P200,000.00. The Court modified the fine amounts, imposing P104,400.00 for Criminal Case No. D-8137, P200,000.00 for Criminal Case No. D-8176, and P200,000.00 for Criminal Case No. D-8177, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The Court also clarified the application of Administrative Circulars Nos. 12-2000 and 13-2001 regarding the imposition of fines in lieu of imprisonment, emphasizing that imprisonment remains an alternative penalty and its non-imposition depends on the peculiar circumstances of each case.
Main Doctrine
Payment of the value of a dishonored check within five banking days after receiving notice of dishonor constitutes a complete defense under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, regardless of the strength of the prosecution's evidence. The issuance of a check for account or for value, even if intended as security, is punishable if it is dishonored.