2/13/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 452

VOL. 452, MARCH 4, 2005 705

Yulo vs. People

*
G.R. No. 142762. March 4, 2005.

LILANY YULO y BILLONES, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE

OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Constitutional Law; Rights of the Accused; Right to Speedy

Trial; Factors; To determine whether the right has been violated,
the following factors may be considered.—The right to a speedy
disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed
violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious,
capricious, and oppressive delays, or when unjustified
postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when
without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed
to elapse without the party having his case tried. To determine
whether the right has been violated, the following factors may be
considered: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for such
delay; (3) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the
accused; and (4) the prejudice caused by the delay.
Criminal Law; Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22;
Elements; The elements of the offense penalized by Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 are the following.—The elements of the offense
penalized by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 are: (1) the making,
drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for
value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at
the time of issue he 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 subsequent dishonor of the check by the
drawee bank for insufficient funds or credit or dishonor for the
same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered
the bank to stop payment.
Same; Same; Gravamen; The purpose for which the check was
issued and the terms and conditions relating to its issuance are
immaterial.—Significantly, what Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
penalizes is the issuance of a bouncing check. It is not the non-
payment of an obligation which the law punishes, but the act of
making and issuing a check that is dishonored upon presentment
for payment. The purpose for which the check was issued and the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001703dbfb2707d252dfc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/9
2/13/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 452

terms and conditions relating to its issuance are immaterial.

What is primordial is that

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

706

706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yulo vs. People

the issued checks were worthless and the fact of worthlessness

was known to the petitioner at the time of their issuance, as in
this case. This is because under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the
mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum.
Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Appeals; Settled is the rule
that factual findings of the trial court which have been affirmed in
toto by the Court of Appeals are entitled to great weight and
respect by the Court.—Settled is the rule that factual findings of
the trial court which have been affirmed in toto by the Court of
Appeals are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court and
will not be disturbed absent any showing that the trial court
overlooked certain facts and circumstances which could
substantially affect the outcome of the case. This exception is not
present here. That Myrna was the sole witness for the prosecution
is of no moment. There is no law requiring that the testimony of a
single witness must be corroborated. The rule in this jurisdiction
is that the testimony of witnesses is weighed, not numbered, and
the testimony of a single witness, if found trustworthy and
credible, as in this case, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Tagle-Chua, Cruz & Aquino for petitioner.
     The Solicitor General for the People.

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule

45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil1 Procedure, as amended,
seeking to reverse the Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated January
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001703dbfb2707d252dfc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/9
2/13/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 452

_______________

1 Rollo at pp. 37-44. Penned by Associate Justice Jainal D. Rasul

(deceased) and concurred in by Associate Justices Hector L. Hofileña and
Artemio G. Toquero (both retired).

707

VOL. 452, MARCH 4, 2005 707

Yulo vs. People

2
31, 1997 in CA-G.R. CR No. 17513 and its Resolution
dated March 16, 2000.
The facts, as culled from the findings of the trial court
and affirmed by the Court of Appeals are:
Sometime in August 1992, Lilany B. Yulo, petitioner,
and Josefina Dimalanta went to the house of Myrna Roque,
private complainant, in Caloocan City. Josefina, introduced
to Myrna petitioner Yulo as her best friend and a good
payer. Josefina told Myrna that petitioner wanted her
checks encashed. In view of Josefina’s assurance that
petitioner is trustworthy, Myrna agreed to encash the
checks. Petitioner then issued to Myrna three checks: (a)
Equitable Bank (EB) Check No. 237936 in the amount of
P40,000.00, postdated September 30, 1992; (b) EB Check
No. 237941 in the amount of P16,200.00; and (c) Bank of
the Philippine Islands (BPI) Check No. 656602 in the
amount of P40,000.00, postdated November 18, 1992.
When Myrna presented the checks for payment to the
drawee banks, they were dishonored. The EB checks were
“Drawn Against Insufficient Funds,” while the BPI check
was stamped “Account Closed.”
As Myrna did not know petitioner’s address, she
immediately informed Josefina about the dishonored
checks. The latter told Myrna not to worry and repeated
her assurance that petitioner is her best friend and a good
payer. Myrna tried to get petitioner’s address from
Josefina, but the latter refused and instead made the
assurance that she will inform petitioner that the checks
were dishonored.
When no payment was forthcoming, Myrna lodged a
complaint against petitioner with the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Caloocan City.

_______________

2 Id., at pp. 46-47. Per Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole with

Associate Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero and Hilarion L. Aquino

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001703dbfb2707d252dfc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/9
2/13/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 452

(both retired), concurring.

708

708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yulo vs. People

On August 23, 1993, three (3) Informations were filed by

the Caloocan City Prosecutor with the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 130, same city, for violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. C-
44774, 44775, and 44776.
When arraigned with the assistance of counsel de parte,
petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges. The cases were
then consolidated and jointly heard.
Petitioner admitted having issued the checks in question
but claimed that she merely lent them to Josefina. In turn,
Josefina delivered the checks to her friend who showed
them to a jeweler as “show money.” It was understood that
the checks were not to be deposited. Petitioner vehemently
denied having any transaction with Myrna.
Petitioner also claimed that that when she issued the
checks, she knew she had no funds in the banks; and that
she was aware that the checks would be dishonored if
presented for payment.
After hearing, the trial court rendered its Decision, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused LILANY YULO y

BILLONES, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and is hereby sentenced as follows:

(1) In Criminal Case No. C-44774, to an imprisonment of

ONE (1) YEAR, and to indemnify the offended party
Myrna Roque in the amount of P16,200.00, representing
the face value of Equitable Bank Check No. 227941, and to
pay the costs;
(2) In Criminal Case No. C-44775, to an to an imprisonment
of ONE (1) YEAR, and to indemnify the offended party
Myrna Roque in the amount of P40,000.00, representing
the face value of Bank of the Philippine Islands Check No.
656602, and to pay the costs;
(3) In Criminal Case No. C-44776, to an imprisonment of
ONE (1) YEAR, and to indemnify the offended party
Myrna Roque in the amount of P40,000.00, representing
the face

709

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001703dbfb2707d252dfc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/9
2/13/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 452

VOL. 452, MARCH 4, 2005 709

Yulo vs. People

value of Equitable Bank Check No. 237936, and to pay the costs.
Pursuant to Rule 114, Section 2(a) of the Rules of Court, as amended,
the bail bond of the accused is cancelled and the accused is hereby
committed to the City Jail.
3
SO ORDERED.”

Upon appeal, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 17513, the Court

of Appeals affirmed in toto the Decision of the trial court.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was
denied.
Hence, the instant petition raising the following
assignments of error:

“I. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER WAS

DEPRIVED OF HER RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION
OF CASES;
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED
IN AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION
OF BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22. EVEN IF THE
REQUISITES THEREFORE ARE NOT COMPLETE;
III. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED
IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL
COURT ALTHOUGH THE LATTER’S DECISION WAS
BASED ON THE UNCORROBORATED, INCREDIBLE,
AND UNNATURAL STATEMENTS OF THE
COMPLAINANT AND ALTHOUGH THE TESTIMOMY
OF THE ACCUSED WAS
4
SUPPORTED BY
CORROBORATING EVIDENCE.

The issues for our resolution are: (1) whether the Court of
Appeals violated petitioner’s right to a speedy trial; and (2)
whether the same court erred in holding that the
prosecution has proved petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
On the first issue, petitioner contends that the Court of
Appeals resolved her motion for reconsideration only after

_______________

3 Id., at pp. 57-58.

4 Id., at p. 37.

710

710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001703dbfb2707d252dfc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/9
2/13/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 452

Yulo vs. People

three (3) years from its filing. Such inaction violates her
right to a speedy disposition of her case.
In his comment, the Solicitor General counters that the
Appellate Court has explained satisfactorily why
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was not resolved
immediately.
Article III, Section 16 of the Constitution provides:

SEC. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative
bodies.

Under the foregoing provision, any party to a case has the

right to demand on all officials tasked with the
administration of justice to expedite its disposition.
However, the concept of speedy disposition is a5 relative
term and must necessarily be a flexible concept. A mere
mathematical
6
reckoning of the time involved is not
sufficient. In applying the Constitutional guarantee,
particular regard must be taken of the facts and
circumstances of each case.
The right to a speedy
7
disposition of a case, like the right
to speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the
proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and
oppressive delays, or when unjustified postponements of
the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause
or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed 8
to
elapse without the party having his case tried. To
determine whether the right has been violated, the
following factors may be considered: (1) the length of the
delay; (2) the reasons for such delay; (3) the

_______________

5 Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 101689, March 17, 1993, 220

SCRA 55, 63; Caballero v. Alfonso, Jr., G.R. No. 45647, August 21, 1987,
153 SCRA 153, 163.
6 Binay v. Sandiganbayan, 374 Phil. 413, 447; 316 SCRA 65, 93 (1999),
citing Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, 253 SCRA 773 (1996).
7 Const. Art. III, Sec. 14(2).
8 Ty-Dazo v. Sandiganbayan, 424 Phil. 945, 950-951; 374 SCRA 200,
203 (2002), citing Binay v. Sandiganbayan, supra; Gonzales v.
Sandiganbayan, 199 SCRA 298 (1991).

711

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001703dbfb2707d252dfc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/9
2/13/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 452

VOL. 452, MARCH 4, 2005 711

Yulo vs. People

assertion or failure to assert such right

9
by the accused; and
(4) the prejudice caused by the delay.
In the instant case, we agree with the Solicitor General
that the delay was sufficiently explained by the Court of
Appeals. The ponente of the decision in CA-G.R. CR No.
17513, Associate Justice Jainal D. Rasul, retired during the
pendency of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration filed on
March 4, 1997. However, the case was assigned to
Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole only on February
28, 2000 and brought to her attention on March 2, 2000.
We note that it took Justice Gozo-Dadole only two (2)
weeks from notice to resolve the motion. Clearly, she did
not incur any delay. We, therefore, rule that there has been
no violation of the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial.
On the second issue, petitioner submits that the
prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. Not all the elements of the offense of violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 were adequately established. For
one, Myrna Roque, private complainant, did not send her
any notice of dishonor. It was Josefina whom Myrna
contacted, not her. For another, petitioner merely lent the
checks to Josefina to be shown by her friend to a jeweler.
Petitioner’s arguments are simply untenable.
The elements of the offense penalized by Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 are: (1) the making, drawing, and
issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2)
the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the
time of issue he 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 subsequent dishonor of
the check by the drawee bank for insufficient funds or
credit or dishonor for the same reason

_______________

9 Blanco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 136757-58, November 27, 2000,

346 SCRA 108, 114 citing Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan, supra.

712

712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yulo vs. People

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001703dbfb2707d252dfc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/9
2/13/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 452

had not the drawer, without

10
any valid cause, ordered the
bank to stop payment.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the prosecution
has proved all the elements of the offense.
Petitioner admitted having issued the three dishonored
checks for value. Her purpose was to encash them. She also
admitted that at the time she issued the checks, she was
aware that she had only P1,000.00 in her account with the
Equitable Bank and that her BPI account was already
closed. Significantly, what Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
penalizes is the issuance of a bouncing check. It is not the
non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes, but
the act of making and issuing 11a check that is dishonored
upon presentment for payment. The purpose for which the
check was issued and the terms and conditions relating to
its issuance are immaterial. What is primordial is that the
issued checks were worthless and the fact of worthlessness
was known to the petitioner at the time of their issuance,
as in this case. This is because under Batas Pambansa Blg.
22, the mere 12
act of issuing a worthless check is malum
prohibitum.
We likewise find no reason to sustain petitioner’s
contention that she was not given any notice of dishonor.
Myrna had no reason to be suspicious of petitioner. It will
be recalled that Josefina Dimalanta assured Myrna that
petitioner is her “best friend” and “a good payer.”
Consequently, when the checks bounced, Myrna would
naturally turn to Josefina for help. We note that Josefina
refused to give Myrna petitioner’s address but promised to
inform petitioner about the dishonored checks.

_______________

10 Tan v. Mendez, Jr., 432 Phil. 760, 769; 383 SCRA 202, 210 (2002)
citing Lim v. People, 420 Phil. 506; 368 SCRA 436 (2001).
11 Ibasco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117488, September 5, 1996, 261
SCRA 449, 463, citing Caram v. Contreras, 237 SCRA 724 (1994).
12 Llamado v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 99032, March 26, 1997, 270
SCRA 423, 431 citing People v. Nitafan, 215 SCRA 79 (1992).

713

VOL. 452, MARCH 4, 2005 713

Yulo vs. People

The Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the trial

court. Settled is the rule that factual findings of the trial
court which have been affirmed in toto by the Court of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001703dbfb2707d252dfc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/9
2/13/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 452

Appeals are entitled to great weight and respect by this

Court and will not be disturbed absent any showing that
the trial court overlooked certain facts and circumstances13
which could substantially affect the outcome of the case.
This exception is not present here. That Myrna was the
sole witness for the prosecution is of no moment. There is
no law requiring that the testimony of a single witness
must be corroborated. The rule in this jurisdiction is that
the testimony of witnesses is weighed, not numbered, and
the testimony of a single witness, if found trustworthy and
credible, as
14
in this case, is sufficient to sustain a
conviction.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of
the Court of Appeals dated January 31, 1997 and its
Resolution dated March 16, 2000, in CA-G.R. CR No.
17513, sustaining the Joint Decision of the trial court in
Criminal Cases Nos. C-44774, C-44775, and C-44776 are
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

          Panganiban (Chairman), Corona, Carpio-Morales

and Garcia, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Note.—It is essential for the maker or drawer to be

notified of the dishonor of her check. (Abarquez vs. Court of
Appeals, 408 SCRA 500 [2003])

——o0o——

_______________

13 Lim v. People, 420 Phil. 506, 512; 368 SCRA 436, 441 (2001), citing
American Home Assurance Co v. Chua, 309 SCRA 250 (1999).
14 People v. Pirame, 384 Phil. 286, 297; 327 SCRA 552 (2000).

714

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001703dbfb2707d252dfc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/9