The Supreme Court, in Victor Ongson v. People, addressed critical aspects of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22), commonly known as the Bouncing Checks Law, and the constitutional right to due process. The court emphasized that for a conviction under B.P. 22 to stand, the information filed against the accused must accurately reflect the details of the dishonored check. Variances between the information and the evidence presented, particularly regarding the check’s date and amount, can lead to acquittal, safeguarding the accused’s right to be informed of the charges against them.

Discrepancies and Dishonor: When Inaccurate Charges Lead to Acquittal

This case revolves around Victor Ongson, who was found guilty in the lower courts of eight counts of violating B.P. 22 for issuing bad checks to Samson Uy. Uy had extended loans to Ongson, who then issued several post-dated checks as payment. However, upon presentment, these checks were dishonored due to reasons such as insufficient funds or closed accounts. Ongson was subsequently charged with violating the Bouncing Checks Law.

At the heart of the legal matter was whether Ongson’s conviction was proper, considering that the trial court’s decision lacked a detailed statement of facts and whether discrepancies existed between the checks described in the information and those presented as evidence. The Supreme Court scrutinized the trial court’s decision, finding it deficient in detailing the material facts, such as the transactions leading to the issuance of the checks and the specific reasons for their dishonor. This deficiency raised concerns about whether Ongson’s due process rights were violated.

The Supreme Court then turned to the elements of B.P. 22, which include: the making, drawing, and issuance of a check; the issuer’s knowledge of insufficient funds at the time of issuance; and the subsequent dishonor of the check. It emphasized that the information filed must accurately describe the check to properly inform the accused of the charges. In this case, the Court found critical inconsistencies between the information and the evidence presented for two of the eight checks.

Specifically, in Criminal Case Nos. Q-93-43437 and Q-93-43442, the dates and amounts of the checks listed in the information differed from those on the actual checks presented as exhibits. Citing Dico v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court reiterated that such inconsistencies violate the accused’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the offense charged. As the Court stated:

The variance in the identity of the check nullifies petitioner’s conviction. The identity of the check enters into the first element of the offense under Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22 – that a person draws or issues a check on account or for value. There being a discrepancy in the identity of the checks described in the information and that presented in court, petitioner’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the offense charged will be violated if his conviction is upheld.

Building on this principle, the Court acquitted Ongson in these two cases, underscoring the importance of accuracy in criminal charges. However, for the remaining six cases (Q-93-43435, Q-93-43436, Q-93-43438, Q-93-43439, Q-93-43440, and Q-93-43441), the Court affirmed Ongson’s conviction. The Court dismissed Ongson’s claim that the checks lacked valuable consideration. The Court stated that issuing a check carries a presumption that it was issued for valuable consideration.

Moreover, the prosecution successfully established that Ongson received money from Uy and issued the checks as payment, regardless of whether the amounts were loans or investments. Ongson also admitted to receiving demand letters informing him of the dishonor of the checks, further solidifying his knowledge of the insufficiency of funds. As per Section 2 of B.P. 22:

SEC. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. – The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.

The court reiterated that the gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. 22 is the act of issuing a worthless check, not the nonpayment of an obligation. Additionally, the Court addressed the appropriate penalty, noting that Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 allows courts the discretion to impose a fine instead of imprisonment, especially for first-time offenders. Thus, the court sentenced Ongson to pay fines equivalent to the amounts of the dishonored checks and to indemnify Uy, with interest.

FAQs

What is Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22)?	B.P. 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, penalizes the act of issuing checks without sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank. The law aims to maintain confidence in the banking system and prevent deception through the use of checks.
What are the elements of a violation of B.P. 22?	The elements are: making, drawing, and issuance of a check; knowledge by the issuer of insufficient funds; and subsequent dishonor of the check by the bank. The prosecution must prove these elements beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
What happens if there are discrepancies in the information filed for a B.P. 22 case?	If there are discrepancies between the check details in the information and the evidence presented, such as the date or amount, the accused may be acquitted. This is because the accused has a constitutional right to be accurately informed of the charges against them.
Is it necessary to present a bank representative to prove the dishonor of a check?	No, the prosecution does not need to present a bank representative. The dishonored check itself, along with the testimony of the private complainant, can be sufficient to prove the dishonor.
What is the significance of a demand letter in B.P. 22 cases?	A demand letter serves as notice to the issuer that the check has been dishonored. Receipt of the demand letter triggers a five-day period within which the issuer must pay the amount of the check or make arrangements for payment to avoid the presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds.
What is the presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds?	Under B.P. 22, if a check is dishonored and the issuer fails to pay the amount or make arrangements for payment within five days of receiving notice, there is a presumption that the issuer knew of the insufficient funds. The burden then shifts to the issuer to prove otherwise.
Can a court impose a fine instead of imprisonment for B.P. 22 violations?	Yes, under Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, courts have the discretion to impose a fine instead of imprisonment, especially for first-time offenders. The decision depends on the specific circumstances of each case.
What interest applies to the amount of the dishonored check?	In the absence of a stipulated interest rate, a legal interest of 12% per annum is applied. It is computed from the date of judicial or extrajudicial demand (receipt of the demand letter) until the finality of the decision, and thereafter until fully paid.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ongson v. People serves as a reminder of the critical importance of accuracy and due process in B.P. 22 cases. While the law aims to protect the integrity of financial transactions, it must be applied fairly and consistently with constitutional guarantees. This decision underscores the need for prosecutors to ensure that the information accurately reflects the details of the dishonored check and ensures that the accused is fully informed of the charges against them.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: VICTOR ONGSON, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT., G.R. NO. 156169, August 12, 2005