Lim v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Blue Pacific Holdings, Inc. (BPHI) granted Rochelle Benito a loan secured by a Promissory Note, with petitioner Ivy Lim signing as co-maker. To secure payment, Benito and Lim issued eleven Equitable PCI Bank checks. Ten of these checks were dishonored for being drawn against a closed account. BPHI sent demand letters to Lim, who allegedly received a final demand letter as evidenced by a registry return card bearing her signature. Procedural History: Lim was charged with 11 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P. Blg.) 22. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) found Lim guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 10 counts, ordering her to pay a fine and subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay civil damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC Decision, and the Court of Appeals (CA) denied Lim's petition for review, affirming the RTC's ruling. The Petition: Lim filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the CA's decision. She argued that the registry return card was unauthenticated, the checks were unauthenticated, and a document (Promissory Note) was admitted without proper presentation and authentication.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the receipt of the notice of dishonor by the petitioner. Whether the subject checks were sufficiently authenticated and proven to have been issued by the petitioner. Whether the Promissory Note was properly admitted and considered as evidence. Whether the petitioner can be held civilly liable for the amounts covered by the checks, including modification of penalty and interest.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals' Decision is affirmed with modification regarding the penalty and interest on actual damages. Petitioner Ivy Lim is ordered to pay a fine for each of the ten counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 and to pay the private complainant the total amount for the civil aspect, plus attorney's fees and costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of notice of dishonor: The Court held that the prosecution sufficiently proved the receipt of the notice of dishonor. The testimony of the prosecution witness, Juanito Enriquez, who sent the demand letter by registered mail, along with the presentation of the registry receipt and the registry return card, constituted adequate proof of service. Furthermore, Enriquez identified the signature on the registry return card as that of Lim, and the MeTC, in exercising its sound discretion, compared this signature with those on the subject checks, finding them to be made by the same person. The Court reiterated that while an authenticating affidavit is ideal, the mailer's personal testimony in court on the sending by registered mail, as provided by Enriquez, suffices. On the authentication and issuance of checks: The Court found no merit in Lim's claim that the checks were unauthenticated. The Preliminary Conference Order admitted the existence and due execution of the eleven checks, and Lim's signature thereon. Moreover, the prosecution witness, Enriquez, presented and identified the 11 checks during trial, testifying that he saw Lim sign them. Lim's defense that she was abroad during the alleged signing on July 29, 2003, did not negate her liability. The Court emphasized that what is material in B.P. Blg. 22 cases is the date of issuance of the checks appearing on their face, not the exact date of delivery or signing, especially since the checks were issued for value and admitted to be duly executed. On the admission of the Promissory Note: The Court ruled that the Promissory Note was properly admitted and considered. The complaint-affidavit, which incorporated the promissory note, was presented, identified, and testified on during trial. Furthermore, Lim stipulated on the existence of the promissory note and her signature thereto in the Preliminary Conference Order, thus waiving the need for further authentication. Her defense of lack of consideration was also unavailing, as the loan granted to her sister, for which she was a co-maker, constituted sufficient consideration. On civil liability and modification of penalty and interest: The Court affirmed Lim's civil liability. As a co-maker jointly and severally liable on the promissory note, she could not claim lack of consideration. The issuance of the checks as security for the loan granted to her sister, which facilitated her sister's travel, meant that Lim stood to benefit. The Court also noted that under the Rules of Court, the genuineness and due execution of a written instrument are deemed admitted unless specifically denied under oath, which Lim failed to do. The Court modified the penalty imposed by the MeTC, adjusting the fine for each count of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 to ₱67,617.65, not exceeding the ₱200,000.00 limit per check. Additionally, the Court clarified that the actual damages awarded would incur interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of the decision until fully paid, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution sufficiently established the elements of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 by presenting evidence of the issuance of checks, their subsequent dishonor, and the receipt of notice of dishonor through an authenticated registry return card. The defense of being abroad during the alleged signing of checks does not negate liability as the material fact is the issuance of the checks for value, not the exact date of signing.