People v. Arceo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Pacifico B. Arceo, Jr. obtained loans totaling P150,000.00 from private complainant Josefino Cenizal. To cover the loans, Arceo issued BPI Check No. 163255, postdated August 4, 1991, for P150,000.00. Cenizal did not immediately deposit the check as Arceo promised to replace it with cash, a promise he made verbally seven times. When Cenizal finally deposited the check, it was dishonored by the bank due to insufficient funds. Cenizal attempted to inform Arceo, but he had left his residence. Cenizal's lawyer sent a demand letter giving Arceo three days to pay, but Arceo failed to do so. Cenizal executed an affidavit and submitted documents for a complaint for estafa and violation of BP 22. A case for violation of BP 22 was filed against Arceo. The check and return slip were later lost by Cenizal due to a fire. Procedural History: The trial court found petitioner guilty of violating BP 22. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. A motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: Petitioner argued that his conviction was erroneous because the dishonored check was not presented in court, it was presented beyond the 90-day period, the notice requirement was not complied with, and he had already paid the obligation.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure to present the original dishonored check in court is fatal to the prosecution's case under BP 22. Whether the presentment of the check beyond the 90-day period from its date renders the drawer free from liability. Whether the notice of dishonor and demand for payment were properly complied with, and if the period given to pay was sufficient. Whether petitioner had already paid his obligation.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's judgment finding petitioner guilty of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the failure to present the original dishonored check: The Court ruled that the best evidence rule does not apply when the issue is the execution or existence of the document, not its content. Testimonial evidence is admissible in such cases. The due execution, existence, and loss of the check were sufficiently established by the testimony of the complainant and his affidavit of loss. Furthermore, the petitioner himself admitted issuing the check and did not deny its presentation and dishonor for insufficient funds. Therefore, the absence of the original check did not preclude conviction. On the presentment of the check beyond the 90-day period: The Court clarified that the 90-day period for presentment is not an element of the offense under BP 22, nor does it automatically discharge the drawer from liability. Current banking practice considers six months a reasonable period for presentment. The check was presented within four months, which is within the allowable period. The petitioner remained obligated to maintain sufficient funds in his account and was liable for the dishonor. On the notice of dishonor and payment of the obligation: The Court found that petitioner was properly informed in writing of the check's dishonor and was given a demand for payment. Although he was given three days, the trial court found that the amount remained unpaid even after five banking days from receipt of notice. This negated his claim of payment and relieved him from liability. His claim of payment was unsubstantiated by any proof, unlike the payee's continued possession of the check and demand for satisfaction. On the petitioner's claim of payment: The Court found no merit in the petitioner's assertion that he had already paid his obligation. The payee, Cenizal, retained possession of the check and repeatedly demanded payment. Petitioner failed to present any evidence of payment. The ordinary course of business would involve the redemption of the check upon payment, which did not occur in this case. Thus, the claim of payment was unsubstantiated.
Main Doctrine
The best evidence rule does not apply when the issue is the execution or existence of a document, and testimonial evidence is admissible. The 90-day period for presentment of a check is not an element of the offense under BP 22, and presentment within six months is considered reasonable.