59. Roberto Cruz v.
Court of Appeals he issued the same, in the nature of a memorandum of indebtedness
G.R. No. 108738| Jun. 17, 1994| Kapunan, J. | Estioko
TOPIC: Bouncing Checks Law
DOCTRINE: BP 22 applies even in cases where dishonored checks are
issued merely in the form of deposit or guaranty.
ER: Cruz borrowed P176,000 from Mayor. To secure the loan, Cruz
issued a check for the same amount. When the check matured, Mayor
presented it to the drawee bank, but it was dishonored. Hence, Mayor
filed a BP 22 case against Cruz. Cruz denied issuing the check, but upon
appeal he claims that the check was only issued as a proof of
indebtedness, as such, it does not fall under BP 22 case. SC: A check
issued as an evidence of debt, though not intended to be presented
for payment has the same effect of an ordinary check.
FACTS:
1. Andrea Mayor is a businesswoman engaged in granting
interest-bearing loans and in rediscounting checks.
2. Roberto Cruz who at that time was engaged in the business of
selling RTW clothes, borrowed P176,000 from Mayor.
3. Cruz issued Premiere Bank Check for same the amount.
4. When the check matured, Mayor presented it to the drawee
bank for payment but the same was dishonored and returned
for reason "account closed.”
5. When notified of the dishonor, Cruz promised to pay his
obligation in cash.
6. No payment was made, hence, an information for violation of
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 was filed against Cruz.
7. Cruz entered a plea of not guilty. He denied issuing the check.
8. The RTC convicted Cruz. The CA affirmed
“Petitioner, in this case, cannot seem to make up his mind. First, he
denies having issued the questioned check, then, he claims that when
and, as such, does not fall within the purview of Batas Pambansa Blg.
22”
9. However, the issuance of the check subject of the present case
is no longer at issue since Cruz himself, on appeal to the CA,
admitted having issued the check after he received the
amount of P176,000.00 from the complaining witness.
ISSUE: Whether Cruz is liable for violation of BP 22 - YES
HELD:
 A check issued as an evidence of debt, though not intended to
be presented for payment has the same effect of an ordinary
check.
 It falls within the ambit of B.P. 22 which merely provides 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 by
the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds on credit . . . shall
be punished by imprisonment.
 When a check is presented for payment, the drawee bank will
generally accept the same regardless of whether it was issued
in payment of an obligation or merely to guarantee the said
obligation. What the law punishes is the issuance of a
bouncing check not the purpose for which it was issued nor
the term and conditions relating to its issuance.