People v. Campos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ma. Rosario P. Campos obtained a loan from respondent First Women's Credit Corporation (FWCC) and issued fourteen (14) postdated checks to cover installment payments. These checks were subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank due to being drawn against a "closed account." Procedural History: After Campos failed to settle her obligation despite demand, she was charged with fourteen (14) counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22). She was tried in absentia and convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the conviction, as did the Court of Appeals (CA) upon further appeal. Campos' motion for reconsideration with the CA was denied. The Petition: Campos filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision. She argued that the prosecution failed to establish the element of knowledge of insufficient funds at the time of issuance and denied receiving a notice of dishonor. She also invoked good faith, claiming she made arrangements for payment after the checks were dishonored.
Issue(s)
Whether a demand letter sent through registered mail is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of B.P. 22 as to knowledge of the fact of the dishonor of the subject checks. Whether petitioner's want of information of the fact of the checks' dishonor and her subsequent arrangements for their payment are tantamount to good faith that would warrant the exercise of equity powers by the Supreme Court.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated July 21, 2008 and Resolution dated February 16, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 31468, affirming the conviction of Campos for fourteen (14) counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of notice of dishonor and knowledge of insufficient funds: To be liable under B.P. 22, the elements are: (1) making, drawing, and issuance of a check for value; (2) knowledge of the issuer at the time of issue that they have insufficient funds or credit; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check for insufficiency of funds or credit. While proof of receipt of a notice of dishonor is not an element, it serves to establish the second element, particularly the knowledge of insufficiency of funds. Section 2 of B.P. 22 creates a prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds if the check is dishonored within ninety days from its date, unless the drawer pays the holder or makes arrangements for payment within five banking days after receiving notice of dishonor. The Court noted that while the prosecution presented a copy of the demand letter and registry return receipt, the mere presentation of registry return receipts is generally insufficient to prove receipt of notice of dishonor without further authentication. However, the petitioner's own defense, asserting that she made arrangements for payment after the checks were dishonored, served as confirmation that she had indeed received the notice of dishonor. This admission implies knowledge of the dishonor and the insufficiency of funds at the time of issuance, thereby satisfying the second element of the offense. The petitioner's claim of making arrangements for payment, which began in January 1996 and extended until May 1998, clearly indicated she was aware of the dishonor and her obligation. On the defense of good faith and arrangements for payment: The petitioner's assertion of good faith and subsequent arrangements for payment was found to be insufficient to warrant acquittal. B.P. 22 provides that an issuer can avoid prosecution by paying the amount due or making arrangements for payment within five banking days after receiving notice of dishonor. The petitioner failed to sufficiently disclose the terms of her alleged arrangement with FWCC and to establish that it had been fully complied with to satisfy the amounts covered by the checks. Furthermore, the petitioner opted to be tried in absentia, thereby waiving her right to present evidence to substantiate her claims of good faith and payment arrangements. The Court reiterated that the negligence of counsel binds the client, and in this case, the petitioner's former counsel's alleged negligence led to her failure to be present during trial and present crucial evidence. Therefore, the circumstances did not support a reversal of the conviction.
Main Doctrine
The petitioner's claim of making arrangements for payment after the dishonor of checks, while seemingly indicating good faith, can also serve as confirmation of receipt of the notice of dishonor, thereby establishing the second element of the offense under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Failure to sufficiently disclose the terms of such arrangements or establish full compliance, especially when the accused opted to be tried in absentia, negates the defense.