San Mateo vs. People G.R. No.

200090

March 6, 2013

It is a settled rule that the remedy of appeal through a petition for

review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court contemplates
only errors of law and not errors of fact. 2 The issues of: (1) whether or
not the subject checks were issued for valuable consideration; and (2)
whether or not the demand letter sent by Sehwani constituted the
notice of dishonor required under B.P. 22, are factual matters that
belong to the proper determination of the MeTC, the RTC and the CA.
But when such courts have overlooked certain facts and circumstances
which, if taken into account, would materially affect the result of the
case, this Court may re-examine their findings of facts. 3
To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the following essential elements
must be present: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check
to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker,
drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in
full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the
check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or
dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid
cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.4
In this case, the third element is present and had been adequately
established. With respect to the first element, the Court gives full faith
and credit to the findings of the lower courts that the checks were
issued for value since San Mateo herself admitted that she drew and
issued the same as payment for the yarns she ordered from ITSP.
Besides, the Court has consistently pronounced that the issue of lack of
valuable consideration for the issuance of checks which were later on
dishonored for insufficient funds is immaterial to the success of a
prosecution for violation of B.P. 22.5
Meriz v. People of the Philippines 420 Phil. 608 (2001)
In fact, petitioners argument that respondent was aware of the fact
that the subject checks were only accommodation checks in favor of
Aguilar is not a defense against a charge for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
In Ruiz v. People of the Philippines,26 where the accused interposed the
defense of accommodation party, we held:
It bears stressing that, whether a person is an accommodation
party is a question of intent. When the intent of the parties does
not appear on the face of the check, it must be ascertained in the
light of the surrounding facts and circumstances. Invariably, the
tests applied are the purpose test and the proceeds test. x x x.
And even assuming she was such party, this circumstance is not a
defense to a charge for violation of B.P. 22. What the law punishes

is the issuance itself of a bouncing check and not the purpose for
which it was issued or of the terms and conditions relating to its
issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check, whether
merely as an accommodation, is covered by B.P. 22. Hence, the
agreement surrounding the issuance of a check is
irrelevant to the prosecution and conviction of the
petitioner.27

The Court has consistently declared that the cause or reason for the
issuance of the check is inconsequential in determining criminal
culpability under BP 22. The Court has since said that a "check issued
as an evidence of debt, although not intended for encashment, has the
same effect like any other check" and must thus be held to be "within
the contemplation of BP 22." Once a check is presented for payment,
the drawee bank gives it the usual course whether issued in payment
of an obligation or just as a guaranty of an obligation. BP 22 does not
appear to concern itself with what might actually be envisioned by the
parties, its primordial intention being to instead ensure the stability
and commercial value of checks as being virtual substitutes for
currency. It is a policy that can easily be eroded if one has yet to
determine the reason for which checks are issued, or the terms and
conditions for their issuance, before an appropriate application of the
legislative enactment can be made. The gravamen of the offense
under BP 22 is the act of making or issuing a worthless check or a
check that is dishonored upon presentment for payment. The act
effectively declares the offense to be one of malum prohibitum. The
only valid query then is whether the law has been breached, i.e., by
the mere act of issuing a bad check, without so much regard as to the
criminal intent of the issuer
Macalalag v. People, G.R. No. 164358; December 20, 2006, 511 SCRA
400; Tan v. Mendez, 432 Phil. 760 (2002); Lozano v. Martinez, G.R. No.
L-63419, December 18, 1986, 146 SCRA 323, 338.
It bears repeating that the
lack of criminal intent on the part of the
18
accused is irrelevant. The law has made the mere act of issuing a
worthless check a malum prohibitum, an act proscribed by legislature
for being deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare. 19 In fact,
even in cases where there had been payment, through compensation
or some other means, there could still be prosecution for violation of
B.P. 22. The gravamen of the offense under this law is the act of issuing
a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentment
for payment, not the nonpayment of the obligation.
Yap vs. Hon cabales, et al, G.R. No. 159186

June 5, 2009

In Jose v. Suarez,26 the prejudicial question under determination was

whether the daily interest rate of 5% was void, such that the checks
issued by respondents to cover said interest were likewise void for
being contra bonos mores, and thus the cases for B.P. Blg. 22 will no
longer prosper. In resolving the issue, We ruled that "whether or not
the interest rate imposed by petitioners is eventually declared void for
being contra bonos mores will not affect the outcome of the BP Blg. 22
cases because what will ultimately be penalized is the mere issuance
of bouncing checks. In fact, the primordial question posed before
the court hearing the B.P. Blg. 22 cases is whether the law has
been breached; that is, if a bouncing check has been issued."
In addition, petitioner's claim of lack of consideration may be
raised as a defense during the trial of the criminal cases
against him. The validity and merits of a partys defense and
accusation, as well as the admissibility and weight of
testimonies and evidence brought before the court, are better
ventilated during trial proper.