People v. Ruiz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Sonia P. Ruiz contracted loans from Norberta Mendoza totaling ₱184,000.00. On July 4, 1997, Ruiz issued UCPB Check No. 151061 dated June 30, 1997, for ₱184,000.00, drawn against Account No. 320-000534-5. The check was dishonored by the drawee bank because the account was closed. Mendoza was notified of the dishonor. Mendoza, through counsel, sent a demand letter to Ruiz on September 22, 1997, demanding payment. Ruiz received the letter on September 24, 1997, and promised to pay but failed to do so. A Certificate to File Action was issued by the Barangay Chairman after Ruiz failed to appear at hearings. Procedural History: Ruiz was charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22) in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). The MTC convicted Ruiz and imposed a fine of ₱200,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment and ordered her to pay Mendoza the face value of the check with legal interest. Ruiz appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing that B.P. 22 does not apply when the drawer is not the owner of the account or has no account with the drawee bank. The RTC affirmed the MTC decision. The Petition: Ruiz filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging that the lower courts erred in applying Section 4 of B.P. 22 and in not considering her defense that she was merely accommodating the complainant and that the account belonged to her sister. She argued that criminal liability under B.P. 22 arises only if the maker has an account with the drawee bank.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the proper remedy from the RTC decision affirming the MTC decision. Whether the petitioner is guilty of violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 despite issuing a check drawn against an account owned by another person and which was already closed. Whether the petitioner can claim the defense of accommodation in a charge for violation of B.P. 22.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court held that the proper remedy from an RTC decision affirming an MTC decision in a criminal case was a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, not a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Furthermore, the petitioner raised factual issues, such as the intent behind the issuance of the check and the knowledge of the parties, which are not proper in a Rule 45 petition, which is limited to questions of law. The Court noted that the petition required a calibration of conflicting testimonies and an examination of the probative value of evidence, thus falling outside the scope of a Rule 45 review. On the violation of B.P. 22: The Court reiterated that the gravamen of the offense under B.P. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or any check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment. The law is broad enough to include the making and issuing of a check by one who has no account with a bank, or where such account was already closed when the check was presented. The Court emphasized that B.P. 22 was enacted to discourage the issuance of bouncing checks and to restore respectability to checks, regardless of the purpose of issuance. The ownership of the account is not material; what is punished is the act of issuing a worthless check. On the defense of accommodation: The Court ruled that even if the petitioner issued the check for accommodation purposes, this does not serve as a defense to a charge for violation of B.P. 22. The law punishes the issuance of a bouncing check itself, not the purpose for which it was issued. The agreement surrounding the issuance of the check is irrelevant to the prosecution and conviction. The petitioner's claim of accommodation was unsubstantiated and contradicted by the private complainant's testimony and the petitioner's subsequent promise to pay after being informed of the dishonor.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a check against a closed account, even if the drawer is not the owner of the account and issued it for accommodation, constitutes a violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, as the law punishes the act of making and issuing a worthless check, regardless of the purpose or ownership of the account.