Você está na página 1de 2

Theresa Macalalag vs. PEOPLE [G.R.

No 155815] AUTHOR: Christian Gigante


TOPIC: Presentment for Payment
PONENTE: CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
It is well to note that the gravamen of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is the issuance of a check, not the non-payment of an obligation. The law has made the act of issuing
a bum check a malum prohibitum. Consequently, the lack of criminal intent on the part of the accused is irrelevant, and the accused will be convicted for violation
thereof as long as the elements of BP.22 are proven
FACTS: On two separate occasions, petitioner Theresa Macalalag obtained loans (P100,000 each) from Grace Estrella. She consistently paid the interests however,
finding the interest rate of 10% per month burdensome, Macalalag requested Estrella for a reduction to which the latter agreed. Later on, Macalalag executed an
Acknowledgment/Affirmation Request promising to pay Estrella the face value of the loans in the total amount of P200,000.00 within two months from the date of
its execution plus 6% interest per month for each loan. She further obligated herself to pay for the two loans the total of P100,000 as liquidated damages and
attorneys fees once she breaches their contract.
As security for the loans, Macalalag issues two PNB Checks each in the amount of P100,000, in favor of Estrella. Upon presentment, the same were dishonored
because the account was closed. Estrella sent a notice of dishonor and demand to make good the said checks to Macalalag, but the latter failed to do so. Hence,
Estrella filed two criminal complaints for violation of BP 22 before the MTCC of Bacolod City.

On trial, Macalalag admitted her indebtedness and the issuance of the two PNB checks, however, she stated that she already made payments over and above the
value of the said checks in the total payment of P355,837.98, including the payment of P199,837.98 made during the pendency of the cases. Estrella admitted the
payment of P199,837.98 but claimed that the same amount was applied to the payment of the interest.

MTCC and RTC: guilty of two counts of violation of BP22. CA: convicted only of 1 count (2nd check)
ISSUE(S): WON, petitioner Macalalag is exempted from criminal liability based on the partial redemption of the second check.
HELD: NO
RATIO:

It is well to note that the gravamen of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is the issuance of a check, not the non-payment of an obligation. The law has made the act
of issuing a bum check a malum prohibitum. Consequently, the lack of criminal intent on the part of the accused is irrelevant, and the accused will be convicted for
violation thereof as long as the following elements are proven:

1. The accused makes, draws or issues any check to apply to account or for value;
2. The accused knows at the time of the issuance that he or she 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 check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or it would have been dishonored for the same reason had
not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.

All these elements have been conclusively proven in Court, the second element by the prima facie evidence established by Section 2 of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22, which provides:

SEC. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. the making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the
drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima
facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon,
or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not
been paid by the drawee.

Even if we agree with petitioner Macalalag that the interests on her loans should not be imputed to the face value of the checks she issued, petitioner Macalalag is
still liable for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Petitioner Macalalag herself declares that before the institution of the two cases against her, she has made a
total payment of P156,000.00. Applying this amount to the first check, what will be left is P56,000.00, an amount insufficient to cover her obligation with respect to
the second check. As stated above, when Estrella presented the checks for payment, the same were dishonored on the ground that they were drawn against a closed
account. Despite notice of dishonor, petitioner Macalalag failed to pay the full face value of the second check issued.

Only a full payment of the face value of the second check at the time of its presentment or during the five-day grace period could have exonerated her from criminal
liability. A contrary interpretation would defeat the purpose of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, that of safeguarding the interest of the banking system and the legitimate
public checking account user, as the drawer could very well have himself exonerated by the mere expediency of paying a minimal fraction of the face value of the
check.

Neither could petitioner Macalalag's subsequent payment of P199,837.98 during the pendency of the cases against her before the MTCC result in freeing her from
criminal liability because the same had already attached after the check was dishonored. Said subsequent payments can only affect her civil, not criminal, liability.
A subsequent payment by the accused would not obliterate the criminal liability theretofore already incurred.

Você também pode gostar