THIRD DIVISION
20, 1998 and July 23, 1998 and,
G.R. No. 190834, November 26,
2014
ARIEL T. LIM, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
This is to resolve the petition for review
on certiorari seeking the reversal of the
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
promulgated on June 30, 2009, and its
Resolution2 dated January 4, 2010. The
CA affirmed the judgment of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC),
convicting petitioner of one (1) count of
violation of Batas Pambansa (B.P.)
Bilang 22 in Criminal Case No. 07-
249932.
Records reveal that petitioner issued
Bank of Commerce Check Nos.
0013813 and 0013814, dated June 30,
1998 and July 15, 1998, respectively,
payable to CASH, in the amount of One
Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00) for each check. He gave
the checks to Mr. Willie Castor (Castor)
as his campaign donation to the latter's
candidacy in the elections of 1998. It
was Castor who ordered the delivery of
printing materials and used petitioner's
checks to pay for the same. Claiming
that the printing materials were
delivered too late, Castor instructed
petitioner to issue a "Stop Payment"
order for the two checks. Thus, the
checks were dishonored by the bank
because of said order and during trial,
when the bank officer was presented on
the witness stand, he admitted that
said checks were drawn against
insufficient funds (DAIF). Private
complainant Magna B. Badiee sent two
demand letters to petitioner, dated My
subsequently, private complainant filed
a complaint against petitioner before
the Office of the Prosecutor. After the
lapse of more than one month from
receipt of the demand letters, and after
receiving the subpoena from the Office
of the Prosecutor, petitioner issued a
replacement check dated September 8,
1998 in the amount of Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00).
Private complainant Magna B. Badiee
was able to encash said replacement
check.
Nevertheless, on March 19, 1999, or
six (6) months after petitioner had paid
the amount of the bounced checks, two
Informations were filed against him
before the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Manila (MeTC), to
wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
CRIMINAL CASE No. 327138-CR
INFORMATION
The undersigned accuses ARIEL LIM of
violation of B.P. Big. 22 committed as
follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
That sometime in the month of April,
1998 in the City of Manila. Philippines,
the said accused did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
make or draw and issue to MAGNA B.
BADIEE to apply on account or for value
BANK OF COMMERCE CHECK No.
0013814 dated July 15, 1998, payable
to Cash in the amount of PI 00,000.00
said accused knowing fully well that at
the time of issue he did not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for payment of such check
in full 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
"PAYMENT STOPPED," but the same
would have been dishonored for
insufficient funds had not the accused,
without any valid reason, ordered the
bank to stop payment, the said
accused, despite receipt of notice of
such dishonor failed to pay said Magna
B. Badiee the amount of the said check
or to make arrangement for payment in
full of the same within five (5) banking
days after receiving said notice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
CRIMINAL CASE No. 327139 - CR
INFORMATION
The undersigned accuses ARIEL LIM of
violation of B.R Big. 22 committed as
follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
That sometime in the month of April,
1998 in the City of Manila, Philippines,
the said accused did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
make or draw and issue to MAGNA B.
BADIEE to apply on account or for value
BANK OF COMMERCE CHECK No.
0013813 dated June 30, 1998 payable
to Cash in the amount of PI 00,000.00
said accused knowing fully well that at
the time of issue he did not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for payment of such check
in full 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
"PAYMENT STOPPED," but the same
would have been dishonored for
insufficient funds had not the accused,
without any valid reason, ordered the
bank to stop payment, the said
accused, despite receipt of notice of
such dishonor failed to pay said Magna
B. Badiee the amount of the said check
or to make arrangement for payment in
full of the same within five (5) banking
days after receiving said notice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
On September 12, 2006, the MeTC
promulgated its Decision finding
petitioner guilty of two (2) counts of
violation of B.P. Big. 22. Petitioner
appealed to the Regional Trial Court of
Manila (RTC), and on July 20, 2007, the
RTC issued a Decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads as
follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, this court therefore
modifies the lower court decision with
respect to criminal case no. 327138
(07-249931), because the lower court
of Manila has no jurisdiction to try and
decide cases where the essential
ingredients of the crime charged
happened in Quezon City. The decision
of the lower court with respect to
criminal case no. 327138 (07-249931)
is ordered vacated and set aside for
lack of jurisdiction.
The lower court findings that accused is
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
for Violation of BP 22 with respect to
criminal case no. 07-24992 is affirmed
and is ordered to pay a fine of
P100,000.00 plus costs. No findings as
to civil liability because the court
agrees with the lower court that the
check was paid, is affirmed and there is
no cogent reason to disturb the same.
In case of failure to pay fine, the
accused shall undergo subsidiary
imprisonment of not more than six (6)
months.
SO ORDERED.5

A petition for review was then filed with
the Court of Appeals, and on June 30,
2009, the CA promulgated its Decision
affirming in toto the RTC judgment.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration
thereof was denied per Resolution
dated January 4, 2010.
Thus, the present petition wherein
petitioner posits that jurisprudence
dictates the dismissal of the criminal
case against him on the ground that he
has fully paid the amount of the
dishonored checks even before the
Informations against him were filed in
court. Petitioner mainly relies
on Griffith v. Court of Appeals.6 The
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
likewise recommends the acquittal of
petitioner, opining that Griffith7 is
applicable to the present case.
The Court finds the petition
meritorious.
In Griffith, the Court acquitted the
accused therein due to the fact that two
years before the filing of the
Information for violation of B.P. No. 22,
the accused had, in effect, paid the
complainant an amount greater than
the value of the bounced checks. The
CA held that the factual circumstances
in Griffith are dissimilar from those in
the present case. The Court disagrees
with such conclusion.
The CA found Griffith inapplicable to
the present case, because the checks
subject of this case are personal
checks, while the check involved
in Griffith was a corporate check and,
hence, some confusion or
miscommunication could easily occur
between the signatories of the check
and the corporate treasurer. Although
the factual circumstances in the
present case are not exactly the same
as those in Griffith, it should be noted
that the same kind of confusion giving
rise to petitioner's mistake very well
existed in the present case. Here, the
check was issued by petitioner merely
as a campaign contribution to Castor's
candidacy. As found by the trial court,
it was Castor who instructed petitioner
to issue a "Stop Payment" order for the
two checks because the campaign
materials, for which the checks were
used as payment, were not delivered
on time. Petitioner relied on Castor's
word and complied with his
instructions, as it was Castor who was
supposed to take delivery of said
materials. Verily, it is easy to see how
petitioner made the mistake of readily
complying with the instruction to stop
payment since he believed Castor's
word that there is no longer any valid
reason to pay complainant as delivery
was not made as agreed upon.
Nevertheless, two months after
receiving the demand letter from
private complainant and just several
days after receiving the subpoena from
the Office of the Prosecutor, accused
issued a replacement check which was
successfully encashed by private
complainant.
The CA also took it against petitioner
that he paid the amount of the checks
only after receiving the subpoena from
the Office of the Prosecutor, which
supposedly shows that petitioner was
motivated to pay not because he
wanted to settle his obligation but
because he wanted to avoid
prosecution. This reasoning is tenuous,
because in Griffith, the accused therein
did not even voluntarily pay the value
of the dishonored checks; rather, the
complainant was paid from the
proceeds of the invalid foreclosure of
the accused's property. In said case,
the Court did not differentiate as to
whether payment was made before or
after the complaint had been filed with
the Office of the Prosecutor. It only
mattered that the amount stated in the
dishonored check had actually been
paid before the Information against the
accused was filed in court. In this case,
petitioner even voluntarily paid value of
the bounced checks. The Court,
therefore, sees no justification for
differentiating this case from that
of Griffith. Records show that both
in Griffith and in this case, petitioner
had paid the amount of the dishonored
checks before the filing of the
Informations in court. Verily, there is
no reason why the same liberality
granted to the accused
in Griffith should not likewise be
extended to herein petitioner. The
precept enunciated in Griffith is herein
reiterated, to
wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
While we agree with the private
respondent that the gravamen of
violation of B.P. 22 is the issuance of
worthless checks that are dishonored
upon their presentment for
payment, we should not apply penal
laws mechanically. We must find if
the application of the law is consistent
with the purpose of and reason for the
law. Ratione cessat lex, el cessat
lex.(When the reason for the law
ceases, the law ceases.) It is not the
letter alone but the spirit of the law
also that gives it life. This is
especially so in this case where a
debtor's criminalization would not
serve the ends of justice but in fact
subvert it. The creditor having
collected already more than a sufficient
amount to cover the value of the
checks for payment of
rentals, via auction sale, we find that
holding the debtor's president to
answer for a criminal offense under
B.P. 22 two years after said collection
is no longer tenable nor justified by law
or equitable considerations.
In sum, considering that the money
value of the two checks issued by
petitioner has already been
effectively paid two years before
the informations against him were
filed, we find merit in this petition.
We hold that petitioner herein
could not be validly and justly
convicted or sentenced for
violation of B.P. 22. x x x (Emphasis
8
supplied)
In the more recent case of Tan v.
Philippine Commercial International
Bank,9 the foregoing principle
articulated in Griffith was the precedent
cited to justify the acquittal of the
accused in said case. Therein, the
Court enumerated the elements for
violation of B.P. Big. 22 being "(1) The
accused makes, draws or issues a
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."10 To facilitate
proving the second element, the law
created a prima facie presumption of
knowledge of insufficiency of funds or
credit, which is established when it is
shown that the drawer of the check was
notified of its dishonor and, within five
banking days thereafter, failed to fully
pay the amount of the check or make
arrangements for its full payment. If
the check, however, is made good or
the drawer pays the value of the check
within the five-day period, then the
presumption is rebutted. Evidently, one
of the essential elements of the
violation is no longer present and the
drawer may no longer be indicted for
B.P. Blg. 22. Said payment within the
period prescribed by the law is a
complete defense.
Generally, only the full payment of the
value of the dishonored check during
the five-day grace period would
exculpate the accused from criminal
liability under B.P. Blg. 22 but, as the
Court further elaborated in
Tan:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In Griffith v. Court of Appeals, the
Court held that were the creditor had
collected more than a sufficient amount
to cover the value of the checks
representing rental arrearages, holding
the debtor's president to answer for a
criminal offense under B.P. Big. 22 two
years after the said collection is no
longer tenable nor justified by law
or equitable considerations. In that
case, the Court ruled that albeit
made beyond the grace period but two
years prior to the institution of the
criminal case, the payment collected
from the proceeds of the foreclosure
and auction sale of the petitioner's
impounded properties, with more than
a million pesos to spare, justified the
acquittal of the petitioner.cralawred
x x x x
In the present case, PCIB already
extracted its proverbial pound of flesh
by receiving and keeping in possession
the four buses - trust properties
surrendered by petitioner in about mid
1991 and March 1992 pursuant to
Section 7 of the Trust Receipts Law, the
estimated value of which was "about
P6.6 million." It thus appears that
the total amount of the dishonored
checks - P1,785,855.75 -, x x x was
more than fully satisfied prior to the
transmittal and receipt of the July
9,1992 letter of demand. In keeping
with jurisprudence, the Court then
considers such payment of the
dishonored checks to have obliterated
the criminal liability of petitioner.
It is consistent rule that penal statutes
are construed strictly against the State
and liberally in favor of the accused.
And since penal laws should not be
applied mechanically, the Court must
determine whether the application of
the penal law is consistent with the
purpose and reason of the law. x x
x11 (Underscoring supplied)
Thus, although payment of the value of
the bounced check, if made beyond the
5-day period provided for in B.P. Blg.
22, would normally not extinguish
criminal liability, the aforementioned
cases show that the Court
acknowledges the existence of
extraordinary cases where, even if all
the elements of the crime or offense
are present, the conviction of the
accused would prove to be abhorrent to
society's sense of justice. Just like
in Griffith and in Tan,12 petitioner
should not be penalized although all the
elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 are
proven to be present. The fact that the
issuer of the check had already paid the
value of the dishonored check after
having received the subpoena from the
Office of the Prosecutor should have
forestalled the filing of the Information
in court. The spirit of the law which, for
B.P. Big. 22, is the protection of the
credibility and stability of the banking
system, would not be served by
penalizing people who have evidently
made amends for their mistakes and
made restitution for damages even
before charges have been filed against
them. In effect, the payment of the
checks before the filing of the
informations has already attained the
purpose of the law.
It should be emphasized as well that
payment of the value of the bounced
check after the information has
been filed in court would no longer
have the effect of exonerating the
accused from possible conviction for
violation of B.P. Big. 22. Since from the
commencement of the criminal
proceedings in court, there is no
circumstance whatsoever to show that
the accused had every intention to
mitigate or totally alleviate the ill
effects of his issuance of the unfunded
check, then there is no equitable and
compelling reason to preclude his
prosecution. In such a case, the letter
of the law should be applied to its full
extent.
merely satisfy the civil liability of the
crime but not the criminal liability.
In fine, the Court holds that herein
petitioner must be exonerated from the
imposition of penalties for violation of
B.P. Big. 22 as he had already paid the
amount of the dishonored checks six
(6) months before the filing of
Informations with the court. Such a
course of action is more in keeping with
justice and equity.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the
Court of Appeals, dated June 30, 2009,
in CA-G.R. CR No. 31725, is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Petitioner Ariel T. Lim
is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No.
07-249932.
SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary

Furthermore, to avoid any confusion,

the Court's ruling in this case should be
well differentiated from cases where
the accused is charged with estafa
under Article 315, par. 2(d) of the
Revised Penal Code, where the fraud is
perpetuated by postdating a check, or
issuing a check in payment of an
obligation when the offender had no
funds in the bank, or his funds
deposited therein were not sufficient to
cover the amount of the check. In said
case of estafa, damage and deceit are
the essential elements of the offense,
and the check is merely the accused's
tool in committing fraud. In such a
case, paying the value of the
dishonored check will not free the
accused from criminal liability. It will Act No. 2031
THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW
XVI. PROMISSORY NOTES AND CHECKS
Sec. 185. Check, defined. - A check is a bill
of exchange drawn on a bank payable on
demand. Except as herein otherwise
provided, the provisions of this Act applicable
to a bill of exchange payable on demand
apply to a check.
DAIF refers to “Drawn Against Insufficient
Funds.”
DAIF is a condition in which a depositor’s
balance is inadequate for the bank to pay a
check.
- a check that has been returned by the
bank on which it was drawn because
the checking account balance was less
than the amount of the check.
A bounced check is a check that was used
for payment, but the check could not be
processed because the check writer did not
have sufficient funds available to fund the
payment.
When an account has insufficient funds, the
check writer’s bank will reject the payment
request and return the check (or the
electronic request) to the payee’s bank.
Instead of sending money to the payee, the
request for payment “bounces” back.
CIRCULAR NO. 705
Series of 2010
Subject : Revised Check Clearing and
Settlement Processes
Pursuant to the Monetary Board Resolution No.
1811 dated 16 December 2010, Circular No. 681
dated 08 February 2010 is hereby amended as
follows:
Section 2. Section X203 and Subsection
X203.1 of the Manual of Regulations for Banks
are hereby combined and amended to read as
follows:
“Section X203 Returned Checks
“A. Checks Without Sufficient Funds/With
Stop Payment Orders . To complement the
provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (An Act
Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance
of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit),
the following regulations shall govern checks
drawn against insufficient funds and checks
drawn against closed accounts:
a. The drawee bank shall affix to the check a
Return Stamp indicating therein the date when
the check is returned and the reason for the
refusal to pay the same to the holder thereof.
b. For checks which shall be dishonored or
returned by reason of insufficiency of funds or
credit, the drawee bank shall indicate the remark
or notation “Drawn Against Insufficient Funds”,
“No Funds”, or “Insufficient Funds” on the Return
Stamp.
c. Notwithstanding receipt of an order to stop
payment, the drawee bank shall likewise indicate
in the Return Stamp, the remarks or notations
mentioned in Item “b” hereof indicating that there
were no sufficient funds in or credit with such
bank for the payment in full of such check or the
account is closed, if such be the fact. The bank
shall also indicate receipt of a stop payment
order.
“For checks which shall be dishonored for the
reason that payment has been stopped, the
following shall be observed:
a. The drawee bank shall affix to the check a
Return Stamp indicating therein the date when
the check is returned and the reason for the
refusal to pay the same to the holder thereof.
b. The drawee bank shall indicate the remark or
notation “Payment Stopped” or “With Stop
Payment Order” on the Return Stamp.
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22
THE ANTI-BOUNCING CHECK LAW
BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22
AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING
AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT
SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
Section 1. Checks without sufficient funds. - Any
person who makes or draws and issues any check
to apply on account or for value, knowing at the
time of issue that he does not have sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of such check in full upon its
presentment, which check is subsequently
dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency
of funds or credit or would have been
dishonored for the same reason had not the
drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the
bank to stop payment, shall be punished by
imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not
more than one (1) year or by a fine of not less
than but not more than double the amount of
the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two
Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such fine and
imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any
person who, having sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank when he makes or draws
and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient
funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full
amount of the check if presented within a period
of ninety (90) days from the date appearing
thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the
drawee bank.
Where the check is drawn by a corporation,
company or entity, the person or persons who
actually signed the check in behalf of such
drawer shall be liable under this Act.
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 (5)
banking days after receiving notice that such
check has not been paid by the drawee.
Sec. 3. Duty of drawee; rules of evidence. - It shall
be the duty of the drawee of any check, when
refusing to pay the same to the holder thereof
upon presentment, to cause to be written,
printed, or stamped in plain language thereon, or
attached thereto, the reason for drawee's
dishonor or refusal to pay the same: Provided,
That where there are no sufficient funds in or
credit with such drawee bank, such fact shall
always be explicitly stated in the notice of
dishonor or refusal. In all prosecutions under
this Act, the introduction in evidence of any
unpaid and dishonored check, having the
drawee's refusal to pay stamped or written
thereon or attached thereto, with the reason
therefor as aforesaid, shall be prima facie
evidence of the making or issuance of said check,
and the due presentment to the drawee for
payment and the dishonor thereof, and that the
same was properly dishonored for the reason
written, stamped or attached by the drawee on
such dishonored check.
Notwithstanding receipt of an order to stop
payment, the drawee shall state in the notice
that there were no sufficient funds in or credit
with such bank for the payment in full of such
check, if such be the fact.
Sec. 4. Credit construed. - The word "credit" as
used herein shall be construed to mean an
arrangement or understanding with the bank for
the payment of such check.
Sec. 5. Liability under the Revised Penal Code. -
Prosecution under this Act shall be without
prejudice to any liability for violation of any
provision of the Revised Penal Code.

Sec. 6. Separability clause. - If any separable

provision of this Act be declared
unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall
continue to be in force.

Sec. 7. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect

fifteen days after publication in the Official
Gazette.
FACTS:
Ariel T. Lim, petitioner, issued two Bank of
Commerce Checks payable to CASH, in the amount
of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for
each check as his campaign donation to Mr. Willie
Castor’s candidacy in the elections of 1998. Due to
the delay of the delivery of the campaign materials,
Castor instructed Lim to issue a “Stop Payment”
order. Thus, the checks were dishonored by the
bank and were drawn against insufficient funds
(DAIF). Private complainant Magna B. Badiee sent
two demand letters to petitioner, dated May 20,
1998 and July 23, 1998 and, subsequently, private
complainant filed a complaint against petitioner
before the Office of the Prosecutor. After the lapse
of more than one month from receipt of the
demand letters, and after receiving
the subpoena from the Office of the Prosecutor,
petitioner issued a replacement check dated
September 8, 1998 in the amount of Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00). Private
complainant Magna B. Badiee was able to encash
said replacement check. Six (6) months after
petitioner had paid the amount of the bounced
checks, two Informations were filed against him
before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila
(MeTC). The CA affirmed the judgment of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC), convicting
petitioner of one (1) count of violation of Batas
Pambansa (B.P.) Bilang 22
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner’s conviction must
be reversed or not.
RULING:
Yes. The court ruled that Lim has already paid in
full the amount of the dishonored checks six
months before the information was filed. In
doing so, he was exonerated from the imposition
of penalties for violation of BP bilang 22. It is a
consistent rule that penal statutes are construed
strictly against the State and liberally in favor of
the accused. Since penal laws should not be
applied mechanically, the Court must determine
whether the application of the penal law is
consistent with the purpose and reason of the
law.
ARGUMENTS:
There are certain lapses as to Mr. Lim’s case
● Primarily, Mr. Ariel T. Lim knowing fully well that
at the time of issue he did not have sufficient funds
in or credit with the drawee bank for payment of
such check in full upon its presentment, but still
issued the said checks? If you do not have the
resources of such, then why would you issue
checks? Then again, you cannot give what you do
not have.
● The checks were subsequently dishonored by
the drawee bank for the reason "PAYMENT
STOPPED,"
● Elements for violation of B.P. Big. 22 being "(1)
The accused makes, draws or issues a 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."
but the same would have been dishonored for
insufficient funds had not the accused, without any
valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment,
the said accused, despite receipt of notice of such
dishonor failed to pay said Magna B. Badiee the
amount of the said check or to make arrangement
for payment in full of the same within five (5)
banking days after receiving said notice.
** The CA held that the factual circumstances
in Griffith are dissimilar from those in the present
case. The Court disagrees with such conclusion.
** The CA found Griffith inapplicable to the present
case, because the checks subject of this case are
personal checks, while the check involved
in Griffith was a corporate check and, hence, some
confusion or miscommunication could easily occur
between the signatories of the check and the
corporate treasurer.
● The CA also took it against petitioner that he paid
the amount of the checks only after receiving
the subpoena from the Office of the Prosecutor,
which supposedly shows that petitioner was
motivated to pay not because he wanted to settle
his obligation but because he wanted to avoid
prosecution. This reasoning is tenuous