THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 133036. January 22, 2003.]

JOY LEE RECUERDO , petitioner, vs . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

AND THE COURT OF APPEALS , respondents.

Aritao Racho & Llauder for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

SYNOPSIS

Petitioner was convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City (MeTC) of five (5)
counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). The Regional Trial
Court (RTC), on appeal, affirmed the decision of the MeTC. The Court of Appeals affirmed
that of the RTC. Hence, this petition
The Supreme Court affirmed appellant's conviction. The Court found petitioner's
contention untenable. According to the Court, the terms and conditions surrounding the
issuance of the checks are irrelevant because a check issued as an evidence of debt,
though not intended for encashment, has the same effect like any other check and within
the contemplation of B.P. 22. The fact that no bank representative testified as to whether
the questioned checks were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds does not also mean
that the trial court failed to uphold her right to presumption of innocence when she was
convicted based on the sole testimony of complainant. The Court stressed that it is not
required, much less indispensable, for the prosecution to present the drawee bank's
representative as a witness to testify on the dishonor of the checks because of
insufficiency of funds. The prosecution may present only complainant as a witness to
prove all the elements of the offense charged. She is competent and qualified witness to
testify that she deposited the checks to her account in a bank; that she subsequently
received from the bank the checks returned unpaid with a notation "drawn against
insufficient funds" stamped or written on the dorsal side of the checks themselves, or in a
notice attached to the dishonored checks duly given to the complainant, and that
petitioner failed to pay complainant the value of the checks or make arrangements for
their payment in full within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such checks
had not been paid by the drawee bank. Complainant's testimony that when she deposited
the checks to her depository bank they were dishonored due to "Account Closed," thus
sufficed.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW; BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22; NOT A BILL OF ATTAINDER. These
matters subject of petitioner's contention have long been settled in the landmark case of
Lozano v. Martinez where this Court upheld the constitutionality of B.P. 22: The gravamen
of the offense punished by B.P. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a
check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is not the non-payment of
an obligation which the law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a
debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious
effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by law. The law punishes the act
not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order. The contention
that B.P. 22 is a bill of attainder, one which inflicts punishment without trial and the
essence of which is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt,
fails. For under B.P. 22, every element of the crime is still to be proven before the trial court
to warrant a conviction for violation thereof.
2. ID.; ID.; A CHECK ISSUED AS AN EVIDENCE OF DEBT, THOUGH NOT INTENDED FOR
ENCASHMENT, HAS THE SAME EFFECT AS AN ORDINARY CHECK WITHIN THE
CONTEMPLATION OF B.P. 22. Petitioner further claims that the dishonored checks were
not issued for deposit and encashment, nor was there consideration therefor, in support of
which she cites her alleged agreement with Yolanda that she could have the stone
appraised to determine the purchase price, and since she found out that it is only worth
P160,000.00, there was no longer any need to fund the remaining checks which should be
returned to her. Yolanda, however, so petitioner adds, could no longer be reached.
Petitioner thus concludes that she had already paid in full the purchase price of the stone,
she having paid P40,000.00 cash plus the P120,000.00 proceeds of the three cleared
checks. Petitioner's submission does not lie. Such alleged agreement does not inspire
belief. The terms and conditions surrounding the issuance of the checks are irrelevant. "A
check issued as an evidence of debt, though not intended for encashment, has the same
effect like any other check. It is within the contemplation of B.P. 22, which is explicit that
"any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply for an account or for value,
knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank . . . which check is subsequently dishonored . . . shall be punished by
imprisonment." (Emphasis supplied.) "B.P. 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 be easily 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."
3. ID.; ID.; PAYEE'S TESTIMONY THAT THE DEPOSITORY BANK DISHONORED THE
CHECKS DUE TO "ACCOUNT CLOSED" IS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF INSUFFICIENCY OF
FUNDS; CASE AT BAR. Whether the checks were dishonored due to insufficiency of
funds, or "Account Closed" as alleged in the informations and testified on by Yolanda,
petitioner's argument is untenable. "It is not required much less indispensable, for the
prosecution to present the drawee bank's representative as a witness to testify on the
dishonor of the checks because of insufficiency of funds. The prosecution may present, as
it did in this case, only complainant as a witness to prove all the elements of the offense
charged. She is competent and qualified witness to testify that she deposited the checks
to her account in a bank; that she subsequently received from the bank the checks
returned unpaid with a notation 'drawn against insufficient funds' stamped or written on
the dorsal side of the checks themselves, or in a notice attached to the dishonored checks
duly given to the complainant, and that petitioner failed to pay complainant the value of the
checks or make arrangements for their payment in full within five (5) banking days after
receiving notice that such checks had not been paid by the drawee bank." (Emphasis
supplied) Yolanda's testimony that when she deposited the checks to her depository bank
they were dishonored due to "Account Closed" thus sufficed. In fact, even petitioner's
counsel during trial admitted the dishonor, and on that ground. SHaATC

4. ID.; ID.; ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 12-2000; IMPOSITION OF FINE IN LIEU OF

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 IMPRISONMENT WOULD BEST SERVE THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IN CASE AT BAR.
Under Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, imprisonment need not be imposed on those
found guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22. Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 issued on
February 14, 2001 vests in the courts the discretion to determine, taking into consideration
the peculiar circumstances of each case, whether the imposition of fine alone would best
serve the interests of justice, or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would
depreciate the seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise
contrary to the imperatives of justice. In the case at bar, this Court notes that no proof, nay
allegation, was proffered that petitioner was not a first time offender. Considering this and
the correctness of the case, it would best serve the interests of justice if petitioner is just
fined to enable her to continue her dental practice so as not to deprive her of her income,
thus insuring the early settlement of the civil aspect of the case, not to mention the FINE.

DECISION

CARPIO MORALES , J : p

Before us for review is the July 16, 1997 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No.
20577 affirming that rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 150, Makati City
which in turn affirmed that of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City, Branch
67 convicting Joy Lee Recuerdo (petitioner) for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (The
Bouncing Checks Law) on 5 counts.
From the evidence of the prosecution, the following facts are established:
Sometime in the first week of December 1993, Yolanda Floro (Yolanda) who is engaged in
jewelry business sold a 3-karat loose diamond stone valued at P420,000.00 to petitioner
who gave a downpayment of P40,000.00. In settlement of the balance of the purchase
price, petitioner issued 9 postdated checks, 8 of which in the amount of P40,000.00, and 1
in the amount of P20,000.00, all drawn against her account at the Prudential Bank. 1
When Yolanda deposited 8 of the 10 checks to her depository bank, Liberty Savings and
Loan Association, only 3, those dated December 25, 1993, January 25, 1994, and February
25, 1994, were cleared. The remaining 5 were dishonored due to the closure of petitioner's
account. 2
Yolanda thus went to petitioner's dental clinic and advised her to change the dishonored
checks to cash. Petitioner promised alright but she welshed on it. 3
A demand letter 4 was thereupon sent to petitioner for her to settle her obligation but she
failed to heed the same, 5 hence, the filing of 5 informations 6 against her for violation of
B.P. 22 at the Makati MeTC, the accusatory portion of the first of which reads:
That sometime in the first week of December, 1993, in the Municipality of Makati,
Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
make out, drawn (sic) and issue to YOLANDA G. FLORO to apply on account or
for value the check described below:

Check No. - 008789

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Drawn Against - Prudential Bank
In the Amount of - P40,000.00

Postdated/dated - July 25, 1994

Payable to - Cash

said accused well knowing that at the time of issue thereof, said account did not
have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment in full of
the face amount of such check upon its presentment, which check when
presented for payment within ninety (90) days from the date thereof was
subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason "ACCOUNT CLOSED"
and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor, the accused failed to pay said
payee the face amount of said check or to make arrangement for full payment
within five (5) banking days after receiving said notice."

Except for the check numbers and dates of maturity, the four other informations are
similarly worded.
After trial, Branch 67 of the Makati MeTC convicted petitioner in a Joint Decision 7 the
dispositive portion of which reads:
Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, the court finds the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 on five (5) counts
and therefore sentences the accused to suffer an imprisonment of 30 days for
each count and to restitute the amount of P200,000.00 to Miss Yolanda G. Floro,
which is the total amount of the five (5) checks, and to pay her also the amount
of P20,000.00 as damages to compensate the payment of attorney's fees.

SO ORDERED. 8

As stated early on, the RTC, on appeal, affirmed the decision of the MeTC. 9 And the Court
of Appeals 1 0 affirmed that of the RTC.
In the petition for review on certiorari at bar, petitioner proffers as follows:
"1. Petitioner was convicted by an invalid law which is Batas Pambansa Blg.
22 for being an unconstitutional law.

2. Petitioner was denied her constitutional right to due process for failure of
the courts a quo to uphold her presumption of innocence and for
convicting her even if the prosecution evidence does not prove her guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The findings of fact of the courts a quo, primarily the Court of Appeals, are
based on surmises, conjectures and speculations.
4. The Court of Appeals was biased against petitioner when it denied the
petition moto propio (sic) without the comment of the Office of the
Solicitor General." 1 1

Petitioner contends that since banks are not damaged by the presentment of dishonored
checks as they impose a penalty for each, only creditors/payees are unduly favored by the
law; that the law "is in essence a resurrected form of 19th century 'imprisonment for debt'"
since the drawer is coerced to pay his debt on threat of imprisonment even if his failure to
pay does not arise from malice or fraud or from any criminal intent to cause damage; 1 2
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 and that the law is a bill of attainder 1 3 as it does not leave much room for judicial
determination, the guilt of the accused having already been decided by the legislature. 1 4
These matters subject of petitioner's contention have long been settled in the landmark
case of Lozano v. Martinez 1 5 where this Court upheld the constitutionality of B.P. 22:
The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. 22 is the act of making and
issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for
payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The
law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of
the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless
checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the
public interest, the practice is proscribed by law. The law punishes the act not as
an offense against property, but an offense against public order. 1 6 (Italics
supplied)
The contention that B.P. 22 is a bill of attainder, one which inflicts punishment without trial
and the essence of which is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of
guilt, 1 7 fails. For under B.P. 22, every element of the crime is still to be proven before the
trial court to warrant a conviction for violation thereof. DHIcET

Reinforcing her thesis, petitioner cites the speech made by now Vice-President Teofisto
Guingona delivered before the Philippine Bar Association wherein he stressed the need to
review the law since it has not prevented the proliferation of bouncing checks. 1 8
As correctly argued by the Solicitor General, however, while due deference is given to the
opinion of the Vice-President, the same should properly be addressed to the legislature
which is in a better position to review the effectiveness and usefulness of the law. 1 9 As
held in the case of Lozano, 2 0 it is not for the Court to question the wisdom or policy of the
statute. It is sufficient that a reasonable nexus exists between the means and the end.
Petitioner further claims that the dishonored checks were not issued for deposit and
encashment, 2 1 nor was there consideration therefor, in support of which she cites her
alleged agreement with Yolanda that she could have the stone appraised to determine
the purchase price, 2 2 and since she found out that it is only worth P160,000.00, 2 3 there
was no longer any need to fund the remaining checks which should be returned to her. 2 4
Yolanda, however, so petitioner adds, could no longer be reached. 2 5 Petitioner thus
concludes that she had already paid in full the purchase price of the stone, she having paid
P40,000.00 cash plus the P120,000.00 proceeds of the three cleared checks. 2 6
Petitioner's submission does not lie. Such alleged agreement does not inspire belief: The
terms and conditions surrounding the issuance of the checks are irrelevant. 2 7
"A check issued as an evidence of debt, though not intended for encashment, has
the same effect like any other check. It is within the contemplation of B.P. 22,
which is explicit that "any person who makes or draws and issues any check to
apply for an account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not
have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank . . . which check is
subsequently dishonored . . . shall be punished by imprisonment." 2 8 (Italics
supplied.)
"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 be easily eroded if one has yet to determine the reason for which checks
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 are issued, or the terms and conditions for their issuance, before an appropriate
application of the legislative enactment can be made." 2 9 (Italics supplied)

Additionally, petitioner argues that as no bank representative testified as to "whether the

questioned checks were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds (sic)," such element was
not clearly and convincingly proven, 3 0 hence, the trial court failed to uphold her right to
presumption of innocence when she was convicted based on the sole testimony of
Yolanda.
Whether the checks were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds, or "Account Closed" as
alleged in the informations and testified on by Yolanda, 3 1 petitioner's argument is
untenable.
"It is not required much less indispensable, for the prosecution to present the
drawee bank's representative as a witness to testify on the dishonor of the checks
because of insufficiency of funds. The prosecution may present, as it did in this
case, only complainant as a witness to prove all the elements of the offense
charged. She is competent and qualified witness to testify that she deposited the
checks to her account in a bank; that she subsequently received from the bank the
checks returned unpaid with a notation 'drawn against insufficient funds'
stamped or written on the dorsal side of the checks themselves, or in a notice
attached to the dishonored checks duly given to the complainant, and that
petitioner failed to pay complainant the value of the checks or make
arrangements for their payment in full within five (5) banking days after receiving
notice that such checks had not been paid by the drawee bank." 3 2 (Italics
supplied)

Yolanda's testimony that when she deposited the checks to her depository bank they were
dishonored due to "Account Closed" 3 3 thus sufficed. In fact, even petitioner's counsel
during trial admitted the dishonor, and on that ground. 3 4
Finally, petitioner imputes bias on the part of the appellate court when it decided her
petition for review without the comment of the Office of the Solicitor General.
The rendition of the decision by the appellate court without the comment of the People-
Appellee is not by itself proof of bias. In any event, the Office of the Solicitor General gave
its comment on petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the appellate court's decision.
In fine, the affirmance of petitioner's conviction is in order.
Under Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, imprisonment need not be imposed on those
found guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22. Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 issued on
February 14, 2001 vests in the courts the discretion to determine, taking into consideration
the peculiar circumstances of each case, whether the imposition of fine alone would best
serve the interests of justice, or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would
depreciate the seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise
contrary to the imperatives of justice. 3 5
In the case at bar, this Court notes that no proof, nay allegation, was proffered that
petitioner was not a first time offender. Considering this and the correctness of the case, it
would best serve the interests of justice if petitioner is just fined to enable her to continue
her dental practice so as not to deprive her of her income, thus insuring the early
settlement of the civil aspect of the case, not to mention the FINE.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals finding petitioner JOY LEE
RECUERDO guilty of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
In lieu of imprisonment, accused-herein petitioner JOY LEE RECUERDO, is ordered to pay a
FINE equivalent to double the amount of each dishonored check subject of the five cases
at bar. And she is also ordered to pay private complainant, Yolanda Floro, the amount of
Two Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos representing the total amount of the
dishonored checks. cIHSTC

SO ORDERED.
Puno, Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez and Corona, JJ., concur.
Footnotes

1. Court of Appeals Rollo, [hereinafter CA Rollo] pp. 3234.

2. Id. at pp. 35, 38.
3. Id. at p. 40.
4. From the CA Rollo, it is gathered that the letter of demand was marked as Exhibit "F."
5. CA Rollo, pp. 4042.
6. CA Rollo, pp. 2428.

7. Penned by Judge Leticia Querubin Ulibarri.

8. Rollo, p. 53.
9. Penned by Judge Erna Falloran Aliposa.
10. Penned by Justice Romeo Callejo, Sr. (now Supreme Court Justice).
11. Rollo, pp. 1213.
12. Rollo, p. 17.
13. Id. at p. 18.
14. Id. at pp. 1718.
15. 146 SCRA 323 (1986).
16. Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323 (1986).
17. People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972).
18. Rollo, p. 19.
19. Id. at p. 138.
20. Supra.
21. CA Rollo, p. 66.
22. Id. at p. 69.
23. Id. at p. 72.
24. Id. at p. 73.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 25. Id. at p. 74.
26. Rollo, p. 24.
27. Lim v. People, 340 SCRA 497 (2000).
28. Dico, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 305 SCRA 637 (1999).
29. Meriz v. People, G.R. No. 134498, November 13, 2001.
30. Rollo, p. 21.
31. CA Rollo, p. 35.

32. Tadeo v. People, 300 SCRA 744 (1998).

33. CA Rollo, p. 35.
34. Id. at p. 38.
35. So v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 138869, August 29, 2002.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com