EUMELIA R. MITRA vs. PP and FELICISIMO S.
TARCELO WERE DRAWN BEFORE LIABILITY ATTACHES TO THE
[G.R. NO. 191404. July 5, 2010]
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS:
Felicismo invested his money in Lucky Nine Credit
Corporation. As was the practice, the corporation thru its
officers, Eumelia and Florencio, treasurer and president,
respectively, of the corporation, issued to him several post-dated
checks representing the principal amount plus interest of the
amounts he invested. When presented for payment, the checks
were dishonoured for reason account closed. Demand was
made by Felicisimo to both Eumelia and Florencio for them pay
the face value of the checks, hence Felicismo filed a case for
violation of BP 22 against the accused. The lower court
convicted them, affirmed by the RTC and the Court of Appeals.
Only Eumelia elevated her appeal to the Supreme Court as
Florencio died in the interim.
In her appeal, Eumelia anchors her defense on the theory
that the corporation should first be held liable before they, the
signatories can be held personally liable. Also, no notice of
dishonour was received by them.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE ELEMENTS OF
VIOLATION OF BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 22 MUST
BE PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AS
AGAINST THE CORPORATION WHO OWNS THE
CURRENT ACCOUNT WHERE THE SUBJECT CHECKS
SIGNATORIES.
RULING:
The Court finds Itself unable to agree with Mitras
posture. The third paragraph of Section 1 of BP 22 reads:
"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." This provision
recognizes the reality that a corporation can only act through its
officers. Hence, its wording is unequivocal and mandatory that
the person who actually signed the corporate check shall be held
liable for a violation of BP 22. This provision does not contain
any condition, qualification or limitation.
To reiterate the elements of a violation of BP 22 as
contained in the above-quoted provision, a violation exists
where:
1. a person makes or draws and issues a check to apply
on account or for value;
2. the person who makes or draws and issues the check
knows at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the full
payment of the check upon its presentment; and
3. the 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.
 There is no dispute that Mitra signed the checks and that
the bank dishonored the checks because the account had been
closed. Notice of dishonor was properly given, but Mitra failed
to pay the checks or make arrangements for their payment within
five days from notice. With all the above elements duly proven,
Mitra cannot escape the civil and criminal liabilities that BP 22
imposes for its breach.
LEODEGARIO BAYANI vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
[G.R. No. 154947. August 11, 2004]
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
FACTS:
Alicia Rubia arrived at the grocery store of Dolores
Evangelista in Candelaria, Quezon, and asked the latter to
rediscount Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) Check No.
054936 in the amount of P55,000.00. The check was drawn by
Leodegario Bayani against his account with the PSBank. After
Rubia endorsed the check, Evangelista gave her the amount of
P55,000.00. However, when Evangelista deposited the check in
her account with the Far East Bank & Trust Company it was
dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason that Bayani closed
his account with the PSBank.
The petitioner averred that the prosecution failed to
adduce evidence that he affixed his signature on the check, or
received from Rubia the amount of P55,000.00, thus negating
his guilt of the crime charged.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
CONVICTION OF PETITIONER BY THE TRIAL COURT
FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF BATAS PAMBANSA
BLG. 22 NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE PROSECUTION
MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE CHECK WAS
ISSUED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION.
RULING:
The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the
act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is
dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is not the non-
payment of an obligation which the law punishes.
Futile is the petitioners contention that the prosecution
failed to prove the crime charged. For the accused to be guilty
of violation of Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22, the prosecution is
mandated to prove the essential elements thereof, to wit:
1. That a person makes or draws and issues any check.
2. That the check is made or drawn and issued to apply
on account or for value.
3. That the person who makes or draws and issues the
check knows 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.
4. That the 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.
In this case, the prosecution adduced documentary
evidence that when the petitioner issued the subject check, the
balance of his account with the drawee bank was only
P2,414.96. During the conference in the office of Atty.
Emmanuel Velasco, Evangelista showed to the petitioner and his
wife a photocopy of the subject check, with the notation at its
dorsal portion that it was dishonored for the reason account
closed. Despite Evangelistas demands, the petitioner refused to
pay the amount of the check and, with his wife, pointed to Rubia
as the one liable for the amount. The collective evidence of the
prosecution points to the fact that at the time the petitioner drew
and issued the check, he knew that the residue of the funds in his
account with the drawee bank was insufficient to pay the amount
of the check.