In Rigor v. People, the Supreme Court affirmed that knowledge by the payee that the drawer has insufficient funds when issuing a check is not a valid defense under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), also known as the Bouncing Checks Law. The Court emphasized that the gravamen of the offense is the act of issuing a bad check, and the issuer’s intent or the payee’s awareness of the insufficiency of funds is immaterial. This ruling reinforces the strict liability imposed by BP 22 to deter the issuance of worthless checks, maintaining public confidence in the banking system. Even if a payee is aware that a check issuer lacks sufficient funds, the issuer is still liable if the check is dishonored.

Loan Gone Wrong: Can Knowledge of Insufficient Funds Excuse a Bouncing Check?

The case revolves around Alfredo Rigor, who was convicted of violating BP 22 for issuing a check that was subsequently dishonored due to a closed account. Rigor argued that he informed the Rural Bank of San Juan that he had insufficient funds and that the loan arrangement involved an officer of the bank taking a portion of the loan proceeds. Despite these claims, both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found Rigor guilty. The central legal question is whether Rigor’s knowledge of his insufficient funds, coupled with the bank’s alleged awareness, absolves him of liability under BP 22.

The Supreme Court addressed the elements of the offense under Section 1 of BP 22, which are: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply on account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit. All three elements were found to be present in Rigor’s case. He applied for a loan, issued a check related to that loan, and the check was dishonored. This is a critical point, as the presence of these elements establishes the offense, regardless of the surrounding circumstances.

The Court highlighted Rigor’s admission of knowing that he had insufficient funds when he issued the check. This admission was deemed sufficient to establish the element of knowledge, even without relying on the presumption of knowledge provided under Section 2 of BP 22. It’s crucial to note that the presumption of knowledge typically arises if the check is presented within ninety days from its date and dishonored for insufficient funds or credit. However, in Rigor’s case, his admission of knowledge made this presumption unnecessary.

Rigor’s defense rested on the argument that the bank knew he had insufficient funds, but the Court dismissed this argument. The Court unequivocally stated that knowledge by the payee of the insufficiency of funds is immaterial. The deceit is not an essential element of the offense under BP 22. This distinction is vital because it underscores the law’s intent to penalize the issuance of bad checks, irrespective of the payee’s awareness. The focus is on maintaining the integrity of the banking system and preventing the circulation of worthless checks.

The Court distinguished the case from Magno v. Court of Appeals, which involved a warranty deposit in a lease contract where the lessor-supplier was also the financier. In Magno, the accused was acquitted because the checks were part of a scheme designed to skim off business clients. In contrast, Rigor’s case involved a standard loan transaction, and the check was directly related to the loan amount. The Court emphasized that the purpose of BP 22 is not to coerce debtors to pay their debts but to prohibit the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. The law punishes the act as an offense against public order, not as an offense against property, as stated in Lozano v. Martinez:

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. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order.

The Court also rejected Rigor’s argument that he did not receive a notice of dishonor. The evidence showed that Rigor was informed about the dishonor of his check, and he even wrote a letter proposing a manner of paying the loan. The Court noted that the notice of dishonor can be sent by the drawee bank, the holder of the check, or the offended party, either by personal delivery or registered mail. Since Rigor admitted knowledge of the dishonor through a demand letter, he could not claim ignorance.

Furthermore, the Court addressed Rigor’s contention that the Regional Trial Court of Pasig lacked jurisdiction. The Court explained that violations of BP 22 are considered transitory or continuing crimes, meaning that the offense can be tried in any municipality or territory where any essential ingredient of the crime occurred. In this case, the check was issued and delivered in San Juan, Metro Manila, giving the Pasig court jurisdiction over the case. The place of issue and delivery was San Juan, and knowledge, as an essential part of the offense, was also overtly manifested in San Juan.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Rigor v. People underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the banking system by strictly enforcing the Bouncing Checks Law. The ruling reinforces that the offense is committed the moment a bad check is issued, regardless of the payee’s awareness of the insufficiency of funds or any underlying agreements. The decision also clarifies that BP 22 is not a tool for debt collection but a measure to prevent the circulation of worthless checks and protect public confidence in financial transactions.

FAQs

What is the Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22)?	BP 22 penalizes the making or issuing of checks without sufficient funds to cover the amount, aiming to deter the circulation of worthless checks. It protects public confidence in the banking system by imposing strict liability on those who issue bad checks.
What are the elements of a violation of BP 22?	The elements are: (1) making, drawing, and issuing a check; (2) knowing there are insufficient funds; and (3) the check being dishonored due to insufficient funds or a closed account. All these elements must be present to establish a violation.
Does the payee’s knowledge of insufficient funds affect the issuer’s liability under BP 22?	No, the payee’s knowledge that the issuer has insufficient funds is immaterial. The gravamen of the offense is the act of issuing a bad check, regardless of the payee’s awareness.
What is the significance of a notice of dishonor?	A notice of dishonor informs the issuer that the check was not honored due to insufficient funds or a closed account. While proof of receipt is often required, it’s not necessary if the issuer admits knowledge of the dishonor through other means.
What is a transitory or continuing crime?	A transitory crime is one where the essential elements occur in different locations. In BP 22 cases, the offense can be tried in any location where an element of the crime occurred, such as where the check was issued, delivered, or dishonored.
Is BP 22 a tool for debt collection?	No, BP 22 is not designed for debt collection. Its primary purpose is to prevent the issuance of worthless checks and maintain public order by ensuring the integrity of financial transactions.
What was the Court’s ruling in Rigor v. People?	The Court affirmed Rigor’s conviction, emphasizing that his knowledge of insufficient funds and the bank’s alleged awareness did not excuse him from liability under BP 22. The ruling reinforced the strict liability imposed by the law.
How does Rigor v. People differ from Magno v. Court of Appeals?	In Magno, the checks were part of a deceptive scheme, whereas Rigor involved a straightforward loan transaction. The differing circumstances led to different outcomes, with Magno being acquitted and Rigor being convicted.

The Rigor v. People case serves as a stark reminder of the stringent application of the Bouncing Checks Law in the Philippines. It underscores the importance for individuals and businesses to exercise due diligence in managing their accounts and issuing checks. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the law’s objective is to protect the public from the proliferation of worthless checks, ensuring financial stability.

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: ALFREDO RIGOR, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT, G.R. No. 144887, November 17, 2004