Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. NO. 191404 July 5, 2010
EUMELIA R. MITRA, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES an FELICISIMO S. TARCELO, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
MEN!O"A, J.:
his is a petition for revie! on certiorari under Rule "# of the Rules of Court assailin$ the %ul& '(, )**+
Decision
(
and the ,ebruar& ((, )*(* Resolution of the Court of -ppeals .C-/ in C-01.R. CR No. '(2"*. he
sub3ect decision and resolution a4ir5ed the -u$ust )), )**2 Decision of the Re$ional rial Court, 6ranch ),
6atan$as Cit& (RTC) !hich, in turn, a4ir5ed the Ma& )(, )**2 Decision of the Municipal rial Court in Cities,
6ranch ), 6atan$as Cit& (MTCC).
THE FACTS#
Petitioner Eu5elia R. Mitra (Mitra) !as the reasurer, and ,lorencio 7. Cabrera, %r. .no! deceased/ !as the
President, of 7uc8& Nine Credit Corporation .7NCC/, a corporation en$a$ed in 5one& lendin$ activities.
6et!een (++9 and (+++, private respondent ,elicisi5o S. arcelo (Tarcelo) invested 5one& in 7NCC. -s the
usual practice in 5one& place5ent transactions, arcelo !as issued chec8s e:uivalent to the a5ounts he
invested plus the interest on his invest5ents. he follo!in$ chec8s, si$ned b& Mitra and Cabrera, !ere issued
b& 7NCC to arcelo.
)
6an8 Date Issued Date of Chec8 -5ount Chec8 No.
Securit& 6an8 Septe5ber (#, (++; %anuar& (#, (+++ P ',()#.** *****"#;*"
0do0 Septe5ber (#, (++; %anuar& (#, (+++ ()#,***.** *****"#;*#
0do0 Septe5ber )*, (++; %anuar& )*, (+++ ),#**.** *****"#;*+
0do0 Septe5ber )*, (++; %anuar& )*, (+++ (**,***.** *****"#;(*
0do0 Septe5ber '*, (++; %anuar& '*, (+++ #,***.** *****"#;("
0do0 Septe5ber '*, (++; %anuar& '*, (+++ )**,***.** *****"#;(#
0do0 October ', (++; ,ebruar& ', (+++ ),#**.** *****"#;2#
0do0 October ', (++; ,ebruar& ', (+++ (**,***.** *****"#;29
0do0 Nove5ber (2, (++; ,ebruar&(2, (+++ #,***.** *****"9*9(
0do0 Nove5ber (2, (++; March (2, (+++ #,***.** *****"9*9)
0do0 Nove5ber (2, (++; March (2, (+++ )**,***.** *****"9*9'
0do0 Nove5ber (+, (++; %anuar& (+, (+++ ),#**.** *****"9*9#
0do0 Nove5ber (+, (++; ,ebruar&(+, (+++ ),#**.** *****"9*99
Page 1 of 6
0do0 Nove5ber (+, (++; March (+, (+++ ),#**.** *****"9*92
0do0 Nove5ber (+, (++; March (+, (+++ (**,***.** *****"9*9;
0do0 Nove5ber )*, (++; %anuar& )*, (+++ (*,***.** *****"9*2*
0do0 Nove5ber )*, (++; ,ebruar& )*, (+++ (*,***.** *****"9*2(
0do0 Nove5ber )*, (++; March )*, (+++ (*,***.** *****"9*2)
0do0 Nove5ber )*, (++; March )*, (+++ (*,***.** *****"9*2'
0do0 Nove5ber '*, (++; %anuar& '*, (+++ ),#**.** *****"9*2#
0do0 Nove5ber '*, (++; ,ebruar& );, (+++ ),#**.** *****"9*29
0do0 Nove5ber '*, (++; March '*, (+++ ),#**.** *****"9*22
0do0 Nove5ber '*, (++; March '*, (+++ (**,***.** *****"9*2;
<hen arcelo presented these chec8s for pa&5ent, the& !ere dishonored for the reason =account closed.=
arcelo 5ade several oral de5ands on 7NCC for the pa&5ent of these chec8s but he !as frustrated.
Constrained, in )**), he caused the >lin$ of seven infor5ations for violation of 6atas Pa5bansa 6l$. )) .6P
))/ in the total a5ount of P+)#,***.** !ith the MCC in 6atan$as Cit&.
'
1avvphi1
-fter trial on the 5erits, the MCC found Mitra and Cabrera $uilt& of the char$es. he fallo of the Ma& )(,
)**2 MCC Decision
"
reads?
<@ERE,ORE, fore$oin$ pre5ises considered, the accused ,7ORENCIO I. C-6RER-, %R., and EAME7I- R.
MIR- are hereb& found $uilt& of the o4ense of violation of 6atas Pa5bansa 6ilan$ )) and are hereb&
ORDERED to respectivel& pa& the follo!in$ >nes for each violation and !ith subsidiar& i5prison5ent in all
cases, in case of insolvenc&?
(. Cri5inal Case No. "'9'2 0 P)**,***.**
). Cri5inal Case No. "'9"* 0 P(**,***.**
'. Cri5inal Case No. "'9"; 0 P(**,***.**
". Cri5inal Case No. "'2** 0 P()#,***.**
#. Cri5inal Case No. "'2*) 0 P)**,***.**
9. Cri5inal Case No. "'2*" 0 P(**,***.**
2. Cri5inal Case No. "'2*9 0 P(**,***.**
Said accused, nevertheless, are ad3ud$ed civill& liable and are ordered to pa&, in solidu5, private co5plainant
,elicisi5o S. arcelo the a5ount of NINE @ANDRED <ENB ,IVE @OAS-ND PESOS .P+)#,***.***/.
SO ORDERED.
Mitra and Cabrera appealed to the 6atan$as RC contendin$ that? the& si$ned the seven chec8s in blan8 !ith
no na5e of the pa&ee, no a5ount stated and no date of 5aturit&C the& did not 8no! !hen and to !ho5 those
chec8s !ould be issuedC the seven chec8s !ere onl& a5on$ those in one or t!o boo8lets of chec8s the& !ere
5ade to si$n at that ti5eC and that the& si$ned the chec8s so as not to dela& the transactions of 7NCC because
the& did not re$ularl& hold o4ice there.
#
Page 2 of 6
he RC a4ir5ed the MCC decision and later denied their 5otion for reconsideration. Mean!hile, Cabrera
died. Mitra alone >led this petition for revie!
9
clai5in$, a5on$ others, that there !as no proper service of the
notice of dishonor on her. he Court of -ppeals dis5issed her petition for lac8 of 5erit.
Mitra is no! before this Court on a petition for revie! and sub5its these issues?
1. $HETHER OR NOT THE ELEMENTS OF %IOLATION OF &ATAS PAM&ANSA &ILANG
22 MUST &E PRO%E! &E'ON! REASONA&LE !OU&T AS AGAINST THE
CORPORATION $HO O$NS THE CURRENT ACCOUNT $HERE THE SU&JECT
CHEC(S $ERE !RA$N &EFORE LIA&ILIT' ATTACHES TO THE SIGNATORIES.
2. $HETHER OR NOT THERE IS PROPER SER%ICE OF NOTICE OF !ISHONOR AN!
!EMAN! TO PA' TO THE PETITIONER AN! THE LATE FLORENCIO CA&RERA, JR.
he Court denies the petition.
- chec8 is a ne$otiable instru5ent that serves as a substitute for 5one& and as a convenient for5 of pa&5ent
in >nancial transactions and obli$ations. he use of chec8s as pa&5ent allo!s co55ercial and ban8in$
transactions to proceed !ithout the actual handlin$ of 5one&, thus, doin$ a!a& !ith the need to ph&sicall&
count bills and coins !henever pa&5ent is 5ade. It per5its co55ercial and ban8in$ transactions to be carried
out :uic8l& and e4icientl&. 6ut the convenience a4orded b& chec8s is da5a$ed b& unfunded chec8s that
adversel& a4ect con>dence in our co55ercial and ban8in$ activities, and ulti5atel& in3ure public interest.
6P )) or the 6ouncin$ Chec8s 7a! !as enacted for the speci>c purpose of addressin$ the proble5 of the
continued issuance and circulation of unfunded chec8s b& irresponsible persons. o ste5 the har5 caused b&
these bouncin$ chec8s to the co55unit&, 6P )) considers the 5ere act of issuin$ an unfunded chec8 as an
o4ense not onl& a$ainst propert& but also a$ainst public order.
2
he purpose of 6P )) in declarin$ the 5ere
issuance of a bouncin$ chec8 as 5alu5 prohibitu5 is to punish the o4ender in order to deter hi5 and others
fro5 co55ittin$ the o4ense, to isolate hi5 fro5 societ&, to refor5 and rehabilitate hi5, and to 5aintain social
order.
;
he penalt& is sti4. 6P )) i5poses the penalt& of i5prison5ent for at least '* da&s or a >ne of up to
double the a5ount of the chec8 or both i5prison5ent and >ne.
Speci>call&, BP 22 provides?
SECION (. Chec8s <ithout Su4icient ,unds. 0 -n& person !ho 5a8es or dra!s and issues an& chec8 to appl&
on account or for value, 8no!in$ at the ti5e of issue that he does not have su4icient funds in or credit !ith the
dra!ee ban8 for the pa&5ent of such chec8 in full upon its present5ent, !hich chec8 is subse:uentl&
dishonored b& the dra!ee ban8 for insu4icienc& of funds or credit or !ould have been dishonored for the sa5e
reason had not the dra!er, !ithout an& valid reason, ordered the ban8 to stop pa&5ent, shall be punished b&
i5prison5ent of not less than thirt& da&s but not 5ore than one .(/ &ear or b& a >ne of not less than but not
5ore than double the a5ount of the chec8 !hich >ne shall in no case eDceed !o @undred housand Pesos, or
both such >ne and i5prison5ent at the discretion of the court.
he sa5e penalt& shall be i5posed upon an& person !ho, havin$ su4icient funds in or credit !ith the dra!ee
ban8 !hen he 5a8es or dra!s and issues a chec8, shall fail to 8eep su4icient funds or to 5aintain a credit to
cover the full a5ount of the chec8 if presented !ithin a period of ninet& .+*/ da&s fro5 the date appearin$
thereon, for !hich reason it is dishonored b& the dra!ee ban8.
<here the chec8 is dra!n b& a corporation, co5pan& or entit&, the person or persons !ho actuall& si$ned the
chec8 in behalf of such dra!er shall be liable under this -ct.
SECION ). Evidence of Eno!led$e of Insu4icient ,unds. 0 he 5a8in$, dra!in$ and issuance of a chec8
pa&5ent of !hich is refused b& the dra!ee because of insu4icient funds in or credit !ith such ban8, !hen
presented !ithin ninet& .+*/ da&s fro5 the date of the chec8, shall be pri5a facie evidence of 8no!led$e of
such insu4icienc& of funds or credit unless such 5a8er or dra!er pa&s the holder thereof the a5ount due
thereon, or 5a8es arran$e5ents for pa&5ent in full b& the dra!ee of such chec8 !ithin >ve .#/ ban8in$ da&s
after receivin$ notice that such chec8 has not been paid b& the dra!ee.
Page 3 of 6
Mitra posits in this petition that before the si$nator& to a bouncin$ corporate chec8 can be held liable, all the
ele5ents of the cri5e of violation of 6P )) 5ust >rst be proven a$ainst the corporation. he corporation 5ust
>rst be declared to have co55itted the violation before the liabilit& attaches to the si$natories of the chec8s.
+

he Court >nds Itself unable to a$ree !ith MitraFs posture. he third para$raph of Section ( of 6P )) reads?
=<here the chec8 is dra!n b& a corporation, co5pan& or entit&, the person or persons !ho actuall& si$ned the
chec8 in behalf of such dra!er shall be liable under this -ct.= his provision reco$niGes the realit& that a
corporation can onl& act throu$h its o4icers. @ence, its !ordin$ is une:uivocal and 5andator& 0 that the
person !ho actuall& si$ned the corporate chec8 shall be held liable for a violation of 6P )). his provision does
not contain an& condition, :uali>cation or li5itation.
In the case of 7la5ado v. Court of -ppeals,
(*
the Court ruled that the accused !as liable on the unfunded
corporate chec8 !hich he si$ned as treasurer of the corporation. @e could not invo8e his lac8 of involve5ent
in the ne$otiation for the transaction as a defense because 6P )) punishes the 5ere issuance of a bouncin$
chec8, not the purpose for !hich the chec8 !as issued or in consideration of the ter5s and conditions relatin$
to its issuance. In this case, Mitra si$ned the 7NCC chec8s as treasurer. ,ollo!in$ 7la5ado, she 5ust then be
held liable for violatin$ 6P )).
-nother essential ele5ent of a violation of 6P )) is the dra!erFs 8no!led$e that he has insu4icient funds or
credit !ith the dra!ee ban8 to cover his chec8. 6ecause this involves a state of 5ind that is di4icult to
establish, 6P )) creates the pri5a facie presu5ption that once the chec8 is dishonored, the dra!er of the
chec8 $ains 8no!led$e of the insu4icienc&, unless !ithin >ve ban8in$ da&s fro5 receipt of the notice of
dishonor, the dra!er pa&s the holder of the chec8 or 5a8es arran$e5ents !ith the dra!ee ban8 for the
pa&5ent of the chec8. he service of the notice of dishonor $ives the dra!er the opportunit& to 5a8e $ood the
chec8 !ithin those >ve da&s to avert his prosecution for violatin$ 6P )).
Mitra alle$es that there !as no proper service on her of the notice of dishonor and, so, an essential ele5ent of
the o4ense is 5issin$. his contention raises a factual issue that is not proper for revie!. It is not the function
of the Court to re0eDa5ine the >ndin$ of facts of the Court of -ppeals. Our revie! is li5ited to errors of la!
and cannot touch errors of facts unless the petitioner sho!s that the trial court overloo8ed facts or
circu5stances that !arrant a di4erent disposition of the case
((
or that the >ndin$s of fact have no basis on
record. @ence, !ith respect to the issue of the propriet& of service on Mitra of the notice of dishonor, the Court
$ives full faith and credit to the consistent >ndin$s of the MCC, the RC and the C-.
he defense postulated that there !as no de5and served upon the accused, said denial deserves scant
consideration. Positive alle$ation of the prosecution that a de5and letter !as served upon the accused prevails
over the denial 5ade b& the accused. hou$h, havin$ denied that there !as no de5and letter served on -pril
(*, )***, ho!ever, the prosecution positivel& alle$ed and proved that the :uestioned de5and letter !as served
upon the accused on -pril (*, )***, that !as at the ti5e the& !ere attendin$ Court hearin$ before 6ranch I of
this Court. In fact, the prosecution had sub5itted a Certi>cation issued b& the other 6ranch of this Court
certif&in$ the fact that the accused !ere present durin$ the -pril (*, )*(* hearin$. <ith such strai$htfor!ard
and cate$orical testi5on& of the !itness, the Court believes that the prosecution has achieved !hat !as
dis5all& lac8in$ in the three .'/ cases of 6ett& Ein$, Victor in$ and Caras 0 evidence of the receipt b& the
accused of the de5and letter sent to her. he Court accepts the prosecutionFs narrative that the accused
refused to si$n the sa5e to evidence their receipt thereof. o re:uire the prosecution to produce the si$nature
of the accused on said de5and letter !ould be i5posin$ an undue hardship on it. -s !ell, actual receipt
ac8no!led$5ent is not and has never been re:uired of the prosecution either b& la! or 3urisprudence.
()

He5phasis suppliedI
<ith the notice of dishonor dul& served and disre$arded, there arose the presu5ption that Mitra and Cabrera
8ne! that there !ere insu4icient funds to cover the chec8s upon their present5ent for pa&5ent. In fact, the
account !as alread& closed.
o reiterate the ele5ents of a violation of 6P )) as contained in the above0:uoted provision, a violation eDists
!here?
(. a person 5a8es or dra!s and issues a chec8 to appl& on account or for valueC
). the person !ho 5a8es or dra!s and issues the chec8 8no!s at the ti5e of issue that he does
not have su4icient funds in or credit !ith the dra!ee ban8 for the full pa&5ent of the chec8
upon its present5entC and
Page 4 of 6
'. the chec8 is subse:uentl& dishonored b& the dra!ee ban8 for insu4icienc& of funds or credit,
or !ould have been dishonored for the sa5e reason had not the dra!er, !ithout an& valid
reason, ordered the ban8 to stop pa&5ent.
('

here is no dispute that Mitra si$ned the chec8s and that the ban8 dishonored the chec8s because the account
had been closed. Notice of dishonor !as properl& $iven, but Mitra failed to pa& the chec8s or 5a8e
arran$e5ents for their pa&5ent !ithin >ve da&s fro5 notice. <ith all the above ele5ents dul& proven, Mitra
cannot escape the civil and cri5inal liabilities that 6P )) i5poses for its breach.
("

<@ERE,ORE, the %ul& '(, )**+ Decision and the ,ebruar& ((, )*(* Resolution of the Court of -ppeals in C-0
1.R. CR No. '(2"* are hereb& -,,IRMED.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL MEN!O"A
-ssociate %ustice
<E CONCAR?
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
-ssociate %ustice
Chairperson
ANTONIO E!UAR!O &. NACHURA
-ssociate %ustice
!IOS!A!O M. PERALTA
-ssociate %ustice
RO&ERTO A. A&A!
-ssociate %ustice
- E S - I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case !as
assi$ned to the !riter of the opinion of the CourtFs Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
-ssociate %ustice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R I , I C - I O N
Pursuant to Section (', -rticle VIII of the Constitution and the Division ChairpersonFs -ttestation, I certif& that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case !as assi$ned to the
!riter of the opinion of the CourtFs Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief %ustice
F))*n)*+,
(
Penned b& -ssociate %ustice 6ienvenido 7. Re&es !ith -ssociate %ustice Isaias P. Dicdican and
-ssociate %ustice Marlene 1onGales0Sison concurrin$.
)
Co5plaint0-4idavits, Rollo, pp. (*+0((#.
'
Id. at ((90()+.
Page 5 of 6
"
Id. at ('*0('".
#
Id. at ("'.
9
Id. at 2#0(*#.
2
7oGano v. MartineG, )'* Phil. "*9, "); .(+;9/.
;
Rosario v. Co, 1.R. No. (''9*;, -u$ust )9, )**;, #9' SCR- )'+, )#'.
+
Rollo, p. "2.
(*
''2 Phil. (#', (9* .(++2/.
((
-5erican @o5e -ssurance Co5pan& v. Chua, '9; Phil. ###, #9+ .(+++/.
()
Rollo, p. (''.
('
Ri$or v. People, ";# Phil. ()#, ('+ .)**"/.
("
In 1osiaco v. Chin$, 1.R. No. (2';*2, -pril (9, )**+, #;# SCR- "2(, ";', !e held an
accused corporate o4icer free fro5 civil liabilit& for the corporate debt after the lo!er court
ac:uitted the accused of cri5inal liabilit& under 6P )). Note that this is a totall& di4erent case
fro5 the present case as the issue here is both cri5inal and civil liabilit&.
Page 6 of 6