Bayani v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Alicia Rubia approached Dolores Evangelista to rediscount Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) Check No. 054936, postdated August 29, 1992, for P55,000.00, drawn by Leodegario Bayani. Rubia claimed Bayani needed the money. Evangelista, knowing Bayani as a long-time customer, agreed and gave Rubia P55,000.00. Upon presentment on September 11, 1992, the check was dishonored because Bayani had closed his account with PSBank on September 1, 1992. As of August 27, 1992, Bayani's account balance was P2,414.96. Evangelista demanded payment from Rubia, who advised her to see Bayani. Bayani claimed Rubia borrowed the check. A conference was held involving Evangelista, Bayani, his wife Aniceta, and Rubia, where liability was denied by Bayani and Rubia, each pointing to the other. Procedural History: Leodegario Bayani was charged with violation of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City, Branch 59, convicted Bayani. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction with modification as to the penalty. The Petition: Bayani filed a petition for review on certiorari, asserting that the prosecution failed to prove he affixed his signature on the check, received the P55,000.00, or that the check was issued for valuable consideration. He argued that Evangelista's testimony regarding Rubia's statements was hearsay and that Rubia was not presented as a witness.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner issued the subject check. Whether the prosecution failed to prove that the check was issued for valuable consideration. Whether the testimony of Dolores Evangelista regarding Alicia Rubia's statements is admissible and sufficient to establish the petitioner's guilt.
Ruling
The petition is denied due course, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner issued the subject check: The Court found that the evidence belied the petitioner's assertion. Dolores Evangelista testified that when she spoke with the petitioner after the check was dishonored, he admitted giving the check to Alicia Rubia, although he claimed Rubia "borrowed" it. Furthermore, Evangelista testified that when she showed a photocopy of the check to the petitioner and his wife in Atty. Velasco's office, they admitted owning the check, though they pointed to each other regarding liability. This admission of ownership, coupled with the prior statement that Rubia borrowed the check, constitutes sufficient proof of issuance. On the issue of whether the prosecution failed to prove that the check was issued for valuable consideration: The Court held that the petitioner could not escape criminal liability by denying receipt of the P55,000.00 from Rubia. The gravamen of BP 22 is the issuance of a worthless check, not the non-payment of an obligation. Evangelista, having rediscounted the check and given P55,000.00 to Rubia, is a holder in due course. Under Section 24 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL), every negotiable instrument is presumed to have been issued for valuable consideration, and this presumption cannot be overcome by the petitioner's bare denial. Absence or failure of consideration is a defense only against a person not a holder in due course. On the admissibility and sufficiency of Evangelista's testimony regarding Rubia's statements: The Court agreed that Evangelista's testimony that Rubia told her the petitioner requested the rediscounting was hearsay. However, the Court clarified that the petitioner's admission to Evangelista that Rubia "borrowed" the check from him, and the joint admission of ownership of the check by the petitioner and his wife, were direct admissions and not hearsay. These direct admissions, along with the other evidence, were sufficient to establish the elements of the offense.
Main Doctrine
The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment, not the non-payment of an obligation. The law prohibits, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation due to their deleterious effects on public order.