MURAO, JOSE PEPITO G.

III
17-4085
Case No. 191

IDOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 110782. September 25, 1998
Quisumbing, J.;

Facts:
In 1985, accused Irma Idos, a businesswoman engaged in leather tanning,
partnered with supplier Eddie Alarilla for a leather tanning business. However, in less
than a year, they terminated their partnership and turned their focus on liquidating their
business. By May of 1986, they had a total of 1.8 Million pesos in receivables and stocks
so accused Idos issued Alarilla four checks 3 for 135,828.87 pesos and the last for
126,656.01 representative of Alarilla’s half. Alarilla was able to encash all but the third
check. On December 18, 1986, Alarilla made a formal demand of payment but in a letter
dated January 2, 1987, accused Idos denied liability stating that they had agreed that the
checks would only serve as assurance of his share in the partnership and would be
encashed only until their remaining stocks were sold. Thus Alarilla filed a civil case and a
criminal case for violation of BP Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Checks law. The trial court
convicted for violating BP Blg. 22 and the Court of Appeals affirmed such conviction.

Issue:
1. Whether Idos’ conviction for violating BP Blg. 22 was proper?

Ruling: NO. The requisites of conviction under BP Blg. 22 are: (1) Issuance of a check
for value (2) Knowledge by the issuer of the insufficiency of funds or credit of the check
upon its presentment (3) Dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency or
for no other valid reason. When Idos issued the checks, it was merely to evidence
Alarilla’s half of the partnership and not for value or as payment. Knowledge that the
check would be insufficient is also undetermined since Idos was in the process of selling
their remaining stocks and even told Alarilla of the same. Idos’ good faith and her deal
with Alarilla was also evinced by the fact that they settled the civil case out of court with
Idos promising to pay the remaining 125,656. 01. Petition GRANTED.