0% found this document useful (0 votes)
29 views3 pages

Dy v. People

1) John Dy was convicted by a Regional Trial Court of two counts of estafa and two counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for issuing checks to W.L. Food Products that were dishonored. 2) The facts are that from 1990, Dy was the distributor of W.L. Food Products in Naga City. On two occasions in June and July 1992, Dy's driver obtained snack foods from W.L. Foods worth over P300,000 total in exchange for postdated checks that were later dishonored for insufficient funds. 3) The Court of Appeals affirmed Dy's conviction with modification. The Supreme Court is asked to reverse the appellate

Uploaded by

Elle Mich
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
29 views3 pages

Dy v. People

1) John Dy was convicted by a Regional Trial Court of two counts of estafa and two counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for issuing checks to W.L. Food Products that were dishonored. 2) The facts are that from 1990, Dy was the distributor of W.L. Food Products in Naga City. On two occasions in June and July 1992, Dy's driver obtained snack foods from W.L. Foods worth over P300,000 total in exchange for postdated checks that were later dishonored for insufficient funds. 3) The Court of Appeals affirmed Dy's conviction with modification. The Supreme Court is asked to reverse the appellate

Uploaded by

Elle Mich
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

1

G.R. No. 158312             November 14, 2008 fact he did obtain the aforesaid snack foods valued
JOHN DY, petitioner,  at P106,579.60 from said complainant as upon
vs. presentation of said check to the bank for payment, the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and The HONORABLE COURT same was dishonored and payment thereof refused for the
OF APPEALS, respondents. reason stop payment and the said accused, once in
possession of the aforesaid snack foods, with intent to
DECISION defraud, [willfully], unlawfully and feloniously misapplied,
QUISUMBING, Acting C.J.: misappropriated and converted the same or the value
thereof to his own personal use and benefit, to the damage
This appeal prays for the reversal of the Decision1 dated January 23, and prejudice of said W.L. Products, herein represented by
2003 and the Resolution2 dated May 14, 2003 of the Court of RODOLFO BORJAL, in the aforementioned amount
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 23802. The appellate court affirmed with of P106,579.60, Philippine Currency.
modification the Decision3 dated November 17, 1999 of the Regional Contrary to law.7
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 82 of Quezon City, which had convicted
petitioner John Dy of two counts of estafa in Criminal Cases Nos. Q- On even date, Lim also charged Dy with two counts of violation
93-46711 and Q-93-46713, and two counts of violation of Batas of B.P. Blg. 22 in two Informations which likewise save for the dates
Pambansa Bilang 224(B.P. Blg. 22) in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-93- and amounts involved similarly read as follows:
46712 and Q-93-46714. That on or about the 24th day of June, 1992, the said
accused, did then and there [willfully], unlawfully and
The facts are undisputed: feloniously make or draw and issue to W.L. FOOD
PRODUCTS to apply on account or for value a Far East
Since 1990, John Dy has been the distributor of W.L. Food Products Bank and Trust Co. Check no. 553602 dated July 22, 1992
(W.L. Foods) in Naga City, Bicol, under the business name Dyna payable to W.L. FOOD PRODUCTS in the amount
Marketing. Dy would pay W.L. Foods in either cash or check upon of P106,579.60 Philippine Currency, said accused knowing
pick up of stocks of snack foods at the latter's branch or main office fully well that at the time of issue he/she/they did not have
in Quezon City. At times, he would entrust the payment to one of his sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for
drivers. payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which
check when presented 90 days from the date thereof was
On June 24, 1992, Dy's driver went to the branch office of W.L. subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for the
Foods to pick up stocks of snack foods. He introduced himself to the reason "Payment stopped" but the same would have been
checker, Mary Jane D. Maraca, who upon confirming Dy's credit with dishonored for insufficient funds had not the accused
the main office, gave him merchandise worth P106,579.60. In return, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop
the driver handed her a blank Far East Bank and Trust Company payment, the said accused despite receipt of notice of such
(FEBTC) Check with Check No. 553602 postdated July 22, 1992. dishonor, failed to pay said W.L. Food Products the amount
The check was signed by Dy though it did not indicate a specific of said check or to make arrangement for payment in full of
amount. the same within five (5) banking days after receiving said
notice.
Yet again, on July 1, 1992, the same driver obtained snack foods CONTRARY TO LAW.8
from Maraca in the amount of P226,794.36 in exchange for a blank
FEBTC Check with Check No. 553615 postdated July 31, 1992. On November 23, 1994, Dy was arrested in Naga City. On
In both instances, the driver was issued an unsigned delivery receipt. arraignment, he pleaded not guilty to all charges. Thereafter, the
The amounts for the purchases were filled in later by Evelyn Ong, cases against him were tried jointly.
accountant of W.L. Foods, based on the value of the goods On November 17, 1999 the RTC convicted Dy on two counts each of
delivered. estafa and violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The trial court disposed of the
case as follows:
When presented for payment, FEBTC dishonored the checks for WHEREFORE, accused JOHN JERRY DY ALDEN (JOHN
insufficiency of funds. Raul D. Gonzales, manager of FEBTC-Naga DY) is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
Branch, notified Atty. Rita Linda Jimeno, counsel of W.L. Foods, of swindling (ESTAFA) as charged in the Informations in
the dishonor. Apparently, Dy only had an available balance Criminal Case No. 93-46711 and in Criminal Case No. Q-
of P2,000 as of July 22, 1992 and July 31, 1992. 93-46713, respectively. Accordingly, after applying the
Later, Gonzales sent Atty. Jimeno another letter5 advising her that provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and P.D. No.
FEBTC Check No. 553602 for P106,579.60 was returned to the 818, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the
drawee bank for the reasons stop payment order and drawn against indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day to
uncollected deposit (DAUD), and not because it was drawn against twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty
insufficient funds as stated in the first letter. Dy's savings deposit (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, in Criminal
account ledger reflected a balance of P160,659.39 as of July 22, Case No. Q-93-46711 and of ten (10) years and one (1)
1992. This, however, included a regional clearing check for P55,000 day to twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to
which he deposited on July 20, 1992, and which took five (5) banking thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua, as maximum, in
days to clear. Hence, the inward check was drawn against the yet Criminal Case No. Q-93-46713.
uncollected deposit. Likewise, said accused is hereby found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of Violation of B.P. 22 as charged in the
When William Lim, owner of W.L. Foods, phoned Dy about the Informations in Criminal Case No. Q-93-46712 and in
matter, the latter explained that he could not pay since he had no Criminal Case No. Q-93-46714 and is accordingly
funds yet. This prompted the former to send petitioner a demand sentenced to imprisonment of one (1) year for each of the
letter, which the latter ignored. said offense and to pay a fine in the total amount
On July 16, 1993, Lim charged Dy with two counts of estafa under of P333,373.96, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
Article 315, paragraph 2(d)6 of the Revised Penal Code in two insolvency.
Informations, which except for the dates and amounts involved, FINALLY, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of private
similarly read as follows: complainant, W. L. Food Products, herein represented by
That on or about the 24th day of June, 1992, in Quezon Rodolfo Borjal, and against herein accused JOHN JERRY
City, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there DY ALDEN (JOHN DY), ordering the latter to pay to the
[willfully] and feloniously defraud W.L. PRODUCTS, a former the total sum of P333,373.96 plus interest thereon
corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of at the rate of 12% per annum from September 28, 1992
the Republic of the Philippines with business address at until fully paid; and, (2) the costs of this suit.
No. 531 Gen. Luis St., Novaliches, this City, in the following SO ORDERED.9
manner, to wit: the said accused, by means of false
manifestations and fraudulent representation which he Dy brought the case to the Court of Appeals. In the assailed Decision
made to complainant to the effect that Far East Bank and of January 23, 2003, the appellate court affirmed the RTC. It,
Trust Co. check No. 553602 dated July 22, 1992 in the however, modified the sentence and deleted the payment of interests
amount of P106,579.60, payable to W.L. Products is a in this wise:
good check and will be honored by the bank on its maturity WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision
date, and by means of other deceit of similar import, appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
induced and succeeded in inducing the said complainant to In Criminal Case No. Q-93-46711 (for estafa), the
receive and accept the aforesaid check in payment of accused-appellant JOHN JERRY DY ALDEN (JOHN DY) is
snack foods, the said accused knowing fully well that all his hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
manifestations and representations were false and untrue imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day
and were made solely for the purpose of obtaining, as in of prision mayor as minimum to twenty (20) years
2

of reclusion temporal as maximum plus eight (8) years in SEC. 14. Blanks; when may be filled.-Where the instrument
excess of [P]22,000.00. In Criminal Case No. Q-93-46712 is wanting in any material particular, the person in
(for violation of BP 22), accused-appellant is sentenced to possession thereof has a prima facie authority to
suffer an imprisonment of one (1) year and to indemnify complete it by filling up the blanks therein. And a
W.L. Food Products, represented by Rodolfo Borjal, the signature on a blank paper delivered by the person making
amount of ONE HUNDRED SIX THOUSAND FIVE the signature in order that the paper may be converted into
HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE PESOS and 60/100 a negotiable instrument operates as a prima facie authority
([P]106,579.60). In Criminal Case No. Q-93-46713 (for to fill it up as such for any amount. …. (Emphasis supplied.)
estafa), accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer Hence, the law merely requires that the instrument be in the
an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from possession of a person other than the drawer or maker. From such
eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as possession, together with the fact that the instrument is wanting in a
minimum to thirty (30) years as maximum. Finally, material particular, the law presumes agency to fill up the
in Criminal Case No. Q-93-46714 (for violation of BP blanks.17 Because of this, the burden of proving want of authority or
22), accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer an that the authority granted was exceeded, is placed on the person
imprisonment of one (1) year and to indemnify W.L. Food questioning such authority.18 Petitioner failed to fulfill this
Products, represented by Rodolfo Borjal, the amount of requirement.
TWO HUNDRED TWENTY SIX THOUSAND SEVEN
HUNDRED NINETY FOUR PESOS AND 36/100 Next, petitioner claims failure of consideration. Nevertheless, in a
([P]226,794.36). letter19 dated November 10, 1992, he expressed willingness to pay
SO ORDERED.10 W.L. Foods, or to replace the dishonored checks. This was a clear
acknowledgment of receipt of the goods, which gave rise to his duty
Dy moved for reconsideration, but his motion was denied in the to maintain or deposit sufficient funds to cover the amount of the
Resolution dated May 14, 2003. checks.
Hence, this petition which raises the following issues:
I. More significantly, we are not swayed by petitioner's arguments that
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF the single incident of dishonor and his absence when the checks
APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE were delivered belie fraud. Indeed damage and deceit are essential
PROSECUTION HAS PROVEN THE GUILT OF elements of the offense and must be established with satisfactory
ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF ESTAFA proof to warrant conviction.20 Deceit as an element of estafa is a
ON TWO (2) COUNTS? specie of fraud. It is actual fraud which consists in any
II. misrepresentation or contrivance where a person deludes another, to
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF his hurt. There is deceit when one is misled -- by guile, trickery or by
APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE other means -- to believe as true what is really false.21
PROSECUTION HAS PROVEN THE GUILT OF Prima facie evidence of deceit was established against petitioner
ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF with regard to FEBTC Check No. 553615 which was dishonored for
VIOLATION OF BP 22 ON TWO (2) COUNTS? insufficiency of funds. The letter22 of petitioner's counsel dated
III. November 10, 1992 shows beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF received notice of the dishonor of the said check for insufficiency of
APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AWARDING DAMAGES funds. Petitioner, however, failed to deposit the amounts necessary
TO PRIVATE COMPLAINANT, W.L. FOOD PRODUCTS, to cover his check within three banking days from receipt of the
THE TOTAL SUM OF [P]333,373.96?11 notice of dishonor. Hence, as provided for by law,23 the presence of
Essentially, the issue is whether John Dy is liable for estafa and for deceit was sufficiently proven.
violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
First, is petitioner guilty of estafa? Petitioner failed to overcome the said proof of deceit. The trial court
Mainly, petitioner contends that the checks were ineffectively issued. found no pre-existing obligation between the parties. The existence
He stresses that not only were the checks blank, but also that W.L. of prior transactions between Lim and Dy alone did not rule out
Foods' accountant had no authority to fill the amounts. Dy also deceit because each transaction was separate, and had a different
claims failure of consideration to negate any obligation to W.L. consideration from the others. Even as petitioner was absent when
Foods. Ultimately, petitioner denies having deceived Lim inasmuch the goods were delivered, by the principle of agency, delivery of the
as only the two checks bounced since he began dealing with him. He checks by his driver was deemed as his act as the employer. The
maintains that it was his long established business relationship with evidence shows that as a matter of course, Dy, or his employee,
Lim that enabled him to obtain the goods, and not the checks issued would pay W.L. Foods in either cash or check upon pick up of the
in payment for them. Petitioner renounces personal liability on the stocks of snack foods at the latter's branch or main office. Despite
checks since he was absent when the goods were delivered. their two-year standing business relations prior to the issuance of the
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), for the State, avers that subject check, W.L Foods employees would not have parted with the
the delivery of the checks by Dy's driver to Maraca, constituted valid stocks were it not for the simultaneous delivery of the check issued
issuance. The OSG sustains Ong's prima facie authority to fill the by petitioner.24 Aside from the existing business relations between
checks based on the value of goods taken. It observes that nothing petitioner and W.L. Foods, the primary inducement for the latter to
in the records showed that W.L. Foods' accountant filled up the part with its stocks of snack foods was the issuance of the check in
checks in violation of Dy's instructions or their previous agreement. payment of the value of the said stocks.
Finally, the OSG challenges the present petition as an inappropriate
remedy to review the factual findings of the trial court. In a number of cases,25 the Court has considered good faith as a
We find that the petition is partly meritorious. defense to a charge of estafa by postdating a check. This good faith
Before an accused can be held liable for estafa under Article 315, may be manifested by making arrangements for payment with the
paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic creditor and exerting best efforts to make good the value of the
Act No. 4885,12 the following elements must concur: (1) postdating or checks. In the instant case petitioner presented no proof of good
issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the faith. Noticeably absent from the records is sufficient proof of sincere
time the check was issued; (2) insufficiency of funds to cover the and best efforts on the part of petitioner for the payment of the value
check; and (3) damage to the payee thereof.13 These elements are of the check that would constitute good faith and negate deceit.
present in the instant case. With the foregoing circumstances established, we find petitioner
guilty of estafa with regard to FEBTC Check No. 553615
Section 191 of the Negotiable Instruments Law14 defines "issue" as for P226,794.36.
the first delivery of an instrument, complete in form, to a person who
takes it as a holder. Significantly, delivery is the final act essential to The same, however, does not hold true with respect to FEBTC
the negotiability of an instrument. Delivery denotes physical transfer Check No. 553602 for P106,579.60. This check was dishonored for
of the instrument by the maker or drawer coupled with an intention to the reason that it was drawn against uncollected deposit. Petitioner
convey title to the payee and recognize him as a holder.15 It means had P160,659.39 in his savings deposit account ledger as of July 22,
more than handing over to another; it imports such transfer of the 1992. We disagree with the conclusion of the RTC that since the
instrument to another as to enable the latter to hold it for himself.16 balance included a regional clearing check worth P55,000 deposited
In this case, even if the checks were given to W.L. Foods in blank, on July 20, 1992, which cleared only five (5) days later, then
this alone did not make its issuance invalid. When the checks were petitioner had inadequate funds in this instance. Since petitioner
delivered to Lim, through his employee, he became a holder technically and retroactively had sufficient funds at the time Check
with prima facie authority to fill the blanks. This was, in fact, No. 553602 was presented for payment then the second element
accomplished by Lim's accountant. (insufficiency of funds to cover the check) of the crime is absent.
Also there is no prima facie evidence of deceit in this instance
The pertinent provisions of Section 14 of the Negotiable Instruments because the check was not dishonored for lack or insufficiency of
Law are instructive: funds. Uncollected deposits are not the same as insufficient funds.
3

The prima facie presumption of deceit arises only when a check has stop payment order, petitioner did not pay or make arrangements
been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds. Notably, the law with the bank for its payment in full within five (5) banking days.
speaks of insufficiency of funds but not of uncollected deposits. Petitioner should be exonerated, however, for issuing FEBTC Check
Jurisprudence teaches that criminal laws are strictly construed No. 553602, which was dishonored for the reason DAUD or drawn
against the Government and liberally in favor of the against uncollected deposit. When the check was presented for
accused.26 Hence, in the instant case, the law cannot be interpreted payment, it was dishonored by the bank because the check deposit
or applied in such a way as to expand its provision to encompass the made by petitioner, which would make petitioner's bank account
situation of uncollected deposits because it would make the law balance more than enough to cover the face value of the subject
more onerous on the part of the accused. check, had not been collected by the bank.
In Tan v. People,38 this Court acquitted the petitioner therein who
Clearly, the estafa punished under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the was indicted under B.P. Blg. 22, upon a check which was dishonored
Revised Penal Code is committed when a check is dishonored for for the reason DAUD, among others. We observed that:
being drawn against insufficient funds or closed account, and not In the second place, even without relying on the credit line,
against uncollected deposit.27 Corollarily, the issuer of the check is petitioner's bank account covered the check she issued
not liable for estafa if the remaining balance and the uncollected because even though there were some deposits that were
deposit, which was duly collected, could satisfy the amount of the still uncollected the deposits became "good" and the bank
check when presented for payment. certified that the check was "funded."39
Second, did petitioner violate B.P. Blg. 22? To be liable under Section 140 of B.P. Blg. 22, the check must be
dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or
Petitioner argues that the blank checks were not valid orders for the dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any
bank to pay the holder of such checks. He reiterates lack of valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.
knowledge of the insufficiency of funds and reasons that the checks In the instant case, even though the check which petitioner deposited
could not have been issued to apply on account or for value as he on July 20, 1992 became good only five (5) days later, he was
did not obtain delivery of the goods. considered by the bank to retroactively have had P160,659.39 in his
account on July 22, 1992. This was more than enough to cover the
The OSG maintains that the guilt of petitioner has been proven check he issued to respondent in the amount of P106,579.60. Under
beyond reasonable doubt. It cites pieces of evidence that point to the circumstance obtaining in this case, we find the petitioner had
Dy's culpability: Maraca's acknowledgment that the checks were issued the check, with full ability to abide by his commitment41 to pay
issued to W.L. Foods as consideration for the snacks; Lim's his purchases.
testimony proving that Dy received a copy of the demand letter; the
bank manager's confirmation that petitioner had insufficient balance Significantly, like Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, B.P. Blg.
to cover the checks; and Dy's failure to settle his obligation within 22 also speaks only of insufficiency of funds and does not treat of
five (5) days from dishonor of the checks. uncollected deposits. To repeat, we cannot interpret the law in such
Once again, we find the petition to be meritorious in part. a way as to expand its provision to encompass the situation of
The elements of the offense penalized under B.P. Blg. 22 are as uncollected deposits because it would make the law more onerous
follows: (1) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply on the part of the accused. Again, criminal statutes are strictly
to account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer or construed against the Government and liberally in favor of the
issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or accused.42
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full As regards petitioner's civil liability, this Court has previously ruled
upon its presentment; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check by that an accused may be held civilly liable where the facts established
the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for by the evidence so warrant.43 The rationale for this is simple. The
the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, criminal and civil liabilities of an accused are separate and distinct
ordered the bank to stop payment.28 The case at bar satisfies all from each other. One is meant to punish the offender while the other
these elements. is intended to repair the damage suffered by the aggrieved party. So,
During the joint pre-trial conference of this case, Dy admitted that he for the purpose of indemnifying the latter, the offense need not be
issued the checks, and that the signatures appearing on them were proved beyond reasonable doubt but only by preponderance of
his.29 The facts reveal that the checks were issued in blank because evidence.44
of the uncertainty of the volume of products to be retrieved, the We therefore sustain the appellate court's award of damages to W.L.
discount that can be availed of, and the deduction for bad orders. Foods in the total amount of P333,373.96, representing the sum of
Nevertheless, we must stress that what the law punishes is simply the checks petitioner issued for goods admittedly delivered to his
the issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it company.
was issued nor the terms and conditions relating thereto.30 If inquiry As to the appropriate penalty, petitioner was charged
into the reason for which the checks are issued, or the terms and with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal
conditions of their issuance is required, the public's faith in the Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 81845 (P.D. No. 818).
stability and commercial value of checks as currency substitutes will Under Section 146 of P.D. No. 818, if the amount of the fraud
certainly erode.31 exceeds P22,000, the penalty of reclusión temporal is imposed in its
Moreover, the gravamen of the offense under B.P. Blg. 22 is the act maximum period, adding one year for each additional P10,000 but
of making or issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored the total penalty shall not exceed thirty (30) years, which shall be
upon presentment for payment. The act effectively declares the termed reclusión perpetua.47 Reclusión perpetua is not the
offense to be one of malum prohibitum. The only valid query, then, is prescribed penalty for the offense, but merely describes the penalty
whether the law has been breached, i.e., by the mere act of issuing a actually imposed on account of the amount of the fraud involved.
bad check, without so much regard as to the criminal intent of the WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. John Dy is
issuer.32 Indeed, non-fulfillment of the obligation is immaterial. Thus, hereby ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. Q-93-46711 for estafa,
petitioner's defense of failure of consideration must likewise fall. This and Criminal Case No. Q-93-46712 for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, but
is especially so since as stated above, Dy has acknowledged receipt he is ORDERED to pay W.L. Foods the amount of P106,579.60 for
of the goods. goods delivered to his company.
In Criminal Case No. Q-93-46713 for estafa, the Decision of the
On the second element, petitioner disputes notice of insufficiency of Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is
funds on the basis of the check being issued in blank. He relies sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years
on Dingle v. Intermediate Appellate Court 33 and Lao v. Court of of prisión mayor, as minimum, to thirty (30) years of reclusión
Appeals34 as his authorities. In both actions, however, the accused perpetua, as maximum.
were co-signatories, who were neither apprised of the particular In Criminal Case No. Q-93-46714 for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, the
transactions on which the blank checks were issued, nor given notice Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, and John Dy is
of their dishonor. In the latter case, Lao signed the checks without hereby sentenced to one (1) year imprisonment and ordered to
knowledge of the insufficiency of funds, knowledge she was not indemnify W.L. Foods in the amount of P226,794.36.
expected or obliged to possess under the organizational structure of SO ORDERED.
the corporation.35 Lao was only a minor employee who had nothing
to do with the issuance, funding and delivery of checks.36 In contrast,
petitioner was the proprietor of Dyna Marketing and the sole
signatory of the checks who received notice of their dishonor.
Significantly, under Section 237 of B.P. Blg. 22, petitioner was prima
facie presumed to know of the inadequacy of his funds with the bank
when he did not pay the value of the goods or make arrangements
for their payment in full within five (5) banking days upon notice. His
letter dated November 10, 1992 to Lim fortified such presumption.
Undoubtedly, Dy violated B.P. Blg. 22 for issuing FEBTC Check No.
553615. When said check was dishonored for insufficient funds and

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy