NEGO when Evangelista deposited the check in her account with the Far East Bank
[02] Bayani v. People and Trust company on September 11, 1992, the check was dishonored for the
GR No. 154947 | August 11, 2004
Callejo, Sr., J.
Doncila [Group 2]
PETITONERS: LEODEGARIO BAYANI
RESPONDENTS: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
TOPIC:
 3. Presumptions of Consideration
CASE SUMMARY:
 In this case, Rubia asked Evangelista to rediscount a check drawn from
petitioner’s PSBank account in the amount of P55,000. The latter acquiesced
and after Rubia indorsed the check, Evangelista gave her P55,000. However,
when she deposited the same, it was dishonored since Bayani has already
closed his account. There ensued fingerpointing between Evangelista and
Bayani. Bayani claims there was no valuable consideration since the
prosecution failed to adduce evidence supporting the same. He also did not
receive P55,0000. The Court held that there is valuable consideration. The
evidence belies the petitioner’s assertion that the prosecution failed to
adduce evidence that he issued the subject check. The evidence on
record shows that Evangelista rediscounted the check and gave P55,000.00
to Rubia after the latter endorsed the same. As such, Evangelista is a
holder of the check in due course. Under Section 28 of the Negotiable
Instruments Law (NIL), absence or failure of consideration is a matter of
defense only as against any person not a holder in due course. Under
Section 24, the NIL provides a presumption of consideration. Such
presumption cannot be overcome by the petitioner’s bare denial of receipt
of the amount of P55,000.00 from Rubia.
DOCTRINE:
 Under Section 28 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL), absence or
failure of consideration is a matter of defense only as against any person
not a holder in due course.
 Under Section 24, the NIL provides a presumption of consideration. Such
presumption cannot be overcome by the petitioner’s bare denial of receipt
of the amount of P55,000.00 from Rubia.
FACTS:
 Alicia Rubia arrived at the grocery store of Dolores Evangelista and
subsequently asked the latter to rediscount her PSBank check amounting to
Php 55,000
 The check was drawn by Leodegario Bayani, petitioner herein, against his
account with PSBank and then post-dated August 29, 1992. Considering that
both Rubia and Bayani were long-time customers and knowing the fact that
Bayani is a good man, Evangelista agreed to rediscount the check. However,
reason that Bayani had closed the said account with PSBank.
 The dishonoring of the check was evidenced by a stamp at its dorsal portion.
Evangelista then informed Rubia that the said check was dishonored and
demanded the return of her Php 55,000. Rubia, in her reply, stated that she
was only requested by Bayani to have the check rediscounted. A series of
finger pointing ensued but ultimately it led to Evangelista filing a case
against Bayani for violating BP22
 Bayani, in his defense stated that there was no valuable consideration when
Evangelista issued the check. He did not receive the Php 55,000. It must be
noted that Bayani merely stated the fact that he did not receive the money
from Evangelista; no further effort was given by Bayani to prove so.
 RTC: ruled against Bayani; CA: confirmed the decision by the RTC
ISSUES:
 WON there is valuable consideration
RULING:
 Yes, there is valuable consideration. According to the Court, the evidence
belies the petitioner’s assertion that the prosecution failed to adduce
evidence that he issued the subject check. Evangelista testified that when
she talked to the petitioner upon Rubia’s suggestion, the petitioner
admitted that he gave the check to Rubia, but claimed that the latter
“borrowed” the check from him. Evangelista testified that she showed to
the petitioner and his wife, Aniceta, a photocopy of the subject check in
the office of Atty. Velasco, where they admitted to her that they owned the
check.
 The evidence on record shows that Evangelista rediscounted the check
and gave P55,000.00 to Rubia after the latter endorsed the same. As such,
Evangelista is a holder of the check in due course. Under Section 28 of the
Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL), absence or failure of consideration is a
matter of defense only as against any person not a holder in due course.
 Under Section 24, the NIL provides a presumption of consideration. Such
presumption cannot be overcome by the petitioner’s bare denial of receipt
of the amount of P55,000.00 from Rubia.
 The petitioner cannot escape criminal liability by denying that he received
the amount of P55,000.00 from Rubia after he issued the check to her
Dispositive:
 IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREOING, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE. The decision of the
Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED.