Narte v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Claro E. Narte and Winston Tomas L. Cadhit, as General Manager and Maintenance and Purchasing Manager, respectively, of Norphil Transport Corporation, issued postdated checks totaling P2,220,000.00 for the purchase of three air-conditioned buses from spouses Delia and Emilio Cabrera. The checks were issued to Emilio Cabrera, purportedly upon his representation as the owner. Upon presentment, several checks were dishonored due to insufficient funds or closed accounts. Despite demands, the obligation remained unsettled. Procedural History: The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila convicted petitioners Narte and Cadhit of ten counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed nine of these convictions. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals, in a petition for review, dismissed the petitioners' appeal, upholding the RTC's decision and affirming the conviction for B.P. 22 violations, including the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The Petition: Petitioners Narte and Cadhit filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, essentially reiterating the arguments raised before the Court of Appeals. They contended that the trial court erred in convicting them because the complainant was not the intended payee, that not all elements of the offense were established, and that subsidiary imprisonment was improperly ordered. The Supreme Court, finding no reversible error and noting that the issues were already passed upon by lower courts, denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the petitioners despite the complainant not being the intended payee of the checks. Whether all the elements of the offense under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 were established. Whether subsidiary imprisonment may be imposed in case of non-payment of fine for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, finding no reversible error in the decision of the Court of Appeals. The conviction for violation of B.P. 22 was affirmed, and the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the complainant not being the intended payee: The Court reiterated that the clear intention of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is to penalize the mere act of issuing a worthless check, making it malum prohibitum. The underlying agreement or the identity of the payee, as long as the check was issued to apply on account or for value and was subsequently dishonored, does not negate the offense. The law focuses on the act of issuing a check without sufficient funds, not on the contractual dispute between the parties. Therefore, the alleged mistake in the payee's name does not absolve the petitioners from liability under B.P. 22. On whether all elements of the offense were established: The Court found that the prosecution successfully established all the elements of the offense under B.P. 22. These elements include the making, drawing, and issuing of a check to apply on account or for value, the knowledge of the drawer at the time of issuance that they do not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank for its payment upon presentment, and the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit. The evidence presented, including the dishonored checks and bank advices, supported these findings, which were consistently upheld by the MeTC, RTC, and Court of Appeals. On the propriety of subsidiary imprisonment: The Court affirmed the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. Citing the Revised Penal Code (RPC), it was clarified that subsidiary imprisonment may be imposed when the only penalty imposed is a fine, and the accused is unable to pay it. This principle applies to special laws like B.P. 22, as the RPC has supplementary application. Therefore, the petitioners' claim that subsidiary imprisonment is improper in this case was rejected.
Main Doctrine
The mere issuance of a check that is subsequently dishonored for insufficiency of funds or by reason of account closed constitutes a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, irrespective of the underlying agreement or the intent of the parties. Subsidiary imprisonment may be imposed in accordance with the Revised Penal Code when only a fine is imposed and the accused is unable to pay it.