Alfredo Rigor v. People of the Philippines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Alfredo Rigor applied for a commercial loan of P500,000.00 from Rural Bank of San Juan (RBSJ). He signed a promissory note and issued an undated Associated Bank Check No. 165476 for P500,000.00, payable to RBSJ, to cover the loan. The loan was approved, and petitioner received the net proceeds. Petitioner failed to pay the loan upon maturity and obtained extensions. He also requested that the Associated Bank check be dated February 16, 1990, and later April 16, 1990. Petitioner again failed to pay. The check was deposited on May 25, 1990, and dishonored due to "Account Closed." Petitioner's account with Associated Bank had been closed since February 2, 1990, and his balance at the time of issuance was only P859, with a highest recorded balance of P40,000 in November 1989. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, Branch 163, convicted petitioner Alfredo Rigor for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), sentencing him to six months imprisonment and ordering restitution. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision, with a modification to delete a reference to mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari, raising issues regarding the element of knowingly issuing a worthless check, the necessity of proof of notice of dishonor, and the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner violated Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, including the element of knowledge of insufficient funds, and the relevance of the payee's knowledge of such insufficiency. Whether proof of actual receipt of a notice of dishonor is required for a prosecution under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and whether the petitioner received such notice. Whether the Regional Trial Court of Pasig had jurisdiction over the case, considering the location of the issuance, delivery, and deposit of the check.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Petitioner Alfredo Rigor is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and knowledge of insufficiency of funds: The Court held that all elements of the offense under Section 1 of BP 22 were present. The petitioner issued the check to apply for value (the loan). His admission of knowing the insufficiency of funds at the time of issuance constituted the "knowledge" element. The Court clarified that even if the payee (the bank) knew of the insufficiency of funds, this does not negate liability under BP 22, as deceit is not an element; the gravamen is the issuance of a bad check. The Court noted that the check was presented beyond the 90-day period for the presumption of knowledge, but this was supplanted by the petitioner's own admission and the fact that his account was already closed prior to the dating of the check. The Court distinguished the case from Magno v. Court of Appeals, which involved a different factual milieu concerning a warranty deposit and a scheme to lease equipment. On the requirement of notice of dishonor: The Court found the contention that no notice of dishonor was received to be without merit. Prosecution witness Edmarcos Basangan testified that he and a co-employee informed the petitioner of the dishonor. Subsequently, the petitioner wrote a letter proposing payment arrangements, and the bank manager sent a demand letter dated September 17, 1990, via registered mail, which informed the petitioner of the dishonor and demanded settlement. The petitioner admitted knowledge of the dishonor through this demand letter, thus satisfying the notice requirement. On the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court: The Court ruled that the RTC of Pasig had jurisdiction because violations of BP 22 are transitory or continuing crimes. The evidence showed that the check was issued and delivered at the Rural Bank of San Juan, Metro Manila, on November 16, 1989, and later dated February 16, 1990, also in San Juan. The check was deposited in San Juan. Therefore, essential ingredients of the offense occurred in San Juan, Metro Manila, vesting jurisdiction in the RTC of Pasig, which tries cases for that territory. The place of issue and delivery, as well as the overt manifestation of knowledge, were in San Juan.
Main Doctrine
The gravamen of the offense under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is the act of issuing a worthless check, not the non-payment of an obligation. Knowledge of insufficiency of funds at the time of issuance, even if known to the payee, is not negated by the payee's knowledge, as deceit is not an essential element of the offense. Violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 are transitory or continuing crimes, allowing jurisdiction in any court where any essential ingredient of the offense occurred.