Dico v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Jaime Dico was charged with three counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. Blg. 22) for issuing three checks to Equitable Card Network, Inc. (ECN) as payment for an obligation. The checks were dishonored for the reason "Account Closed." The accusatory portion of the Information for Criminal Case No. 38254-R stated FEBTC Check No. 364903 dated May 12, 1993, for P100,000.00. The other Informations involved FEBTC Check No. 369404 dated June 12, 1993, for P200,000.00, and FEBTC Check No. 369380 dated January 15, 1993, for P296,736.27. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) convicted the petitioner of all three counts. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTCC decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the decision, acquitting the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 38256-R (for Check No. 369380) due to lack of evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds, but ordered him to indemnify ECN for the amount of the check. The CA affirmed the conviction in Criminal Cases No. 38254-R and No. 38255-R (for Check Nos. 369403 and 369404, respectively). The CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner Jaime Dico filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking reversal of the CA decision convicting him in two cases, arguing that the elements of B.P. Blg. 22 were not proven, particularly the knowledge of insufficiency of funds and issuance for value. He also argued that the penalty of imprisonment was too harsh.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 for the checks subject of Criminal Cases No. 38254-R and No. 38255-R. Whether the variance between the check described in the Information and the check presented as evidence in Criminal Case No. 38254-R warrants acquittal. Whether a valid notice of dishonor was given to the petitioner for the check in Criminal Case No. 38255-R, allowing the presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds to arise; and if not, whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to prove knowledge of insufficient funds at the time of issuance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decisions of the Court of Appeals, RTC, and MTCC in Criminal Cases No. 38254-R and No. 38255-R, acquitting petitioner Jaime Dico of the crimes charged on the ground that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioner was ordered to pay Equitable Card Network, Inc. P200,000.00, representing the face value of FEBTC Check No. 369404, with legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22: The Court addressed this issue in relation to the specific arguments raised regarding variance and notice of dishonor, as these relate to specific elements of the offense. On the issue of variance in Criminal Case No. 38254-R: The Court found a discrepancy between the check described in the Information (FEBTC Check No. 364903) and the check presented as evidence (FEBTC Check No. 369403). This variance violates the petitioner's constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the offense charged, as the identity of the check is crucial to the first element of B.P. Blg. 22 (issuance of a check on account or for value). Consequently, the conviction in this case could not be sustained. The Court also noted that since the check presented was not the one described in the Information, the petitioner could not be held civilly liable for that specific check. On the issue of notice of dishonor in Criminal Case No. 38255-R: The Court held that for the presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds under Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 to arise, the prosecution must prove that the check was presented within ninety (90) days, the drawer received notice of dishonor, and failed to pay within five banking days. In this case, the only notice received by the petitioner was dated June 8, 1993, which was before the check's due date of June 12, 1993, and before it was deposited on June 14, 1993. The Court clarified that a notice of dishonor can only be given after a check has been presented and subsequently dishonored. A notice sent before the check's maturity or deposit is not a valid notice of dishonor. Therefore, the presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds did not arise. Without this presumption, the prosecution failed to present evidence proving the petitioner's knowledge of insufficient funds at the time of issuance, thus failing to satisfy the second element of the offense. Accordingly, the petitioner was acquitted in this case. The Court, however, sustained the finding that the petitioner had an outstanding balance and ordered him to pay P200,000.00, the amount of the dishonored check, representing his unpaid obligation.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution must prove all the elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 beyond reasonable doubt. A variance between the check described in the Information and the check presented as evidence is fatal to the charge. Furthermore, a notice of dishonor must be sent and received by the drawer after the check has been presented and dishonored for the presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds to arise; a notice sent before the check's due date or before its deposit is not a valid notice of dishonor.