The Supreme Court affirmed that issuing a bouncing check constitutes a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, even if the issuer claims to have lent the check to another person. The Court emphasized that the law punishes the act of issuing a worthless check, not the non-payment of an obligation. This ruling serves as a stern reminder that individuals cannot evade liability under B.P. Blg. 22 by claiming ignorance of insufficient funds or by alleging that the check was issued for a purpose other than direct payment.

The Friend’s Assurance: Can It Shield You from a Bouncing Check Charge?

This case revolves around Lilany Yulo’s conviction for violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. Blg. 22), also known as the Bouncing Checks Law. The core issue is whether Yulo could be held liable for issuing checks that were subsequently dishonored, despite her claims that she merely lent the checks to a friend and had no direct transaction with the complainant, Myrna Roque.

The facts reveal that Yulo, introduced by her friend Josefina Dimalanta to Myrna Roque, issued three checks to Roque, who encashed them. When Roque presented the checks for payment, they were dishonored due to insufficient funds or a closed account. Yulo argued that she had only lent the checks to Josefina, who in turn delivered them to another friend as “show money,” with the understanding that they would not be deposited. She denied any transaction with Roque, claiming lack of notice of dishonor.

The trial court found Yulo guilty, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court, in this petition for review, addressed two main issues: whether Yulo’s right to a speedy disposition of cases was violated and whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming her conviction for violating B.P. Blg. 22.

Regarding the first issue, Yulo argued that the Court of Appeals’ delay in resolving her motion for reconsideration violated her right to a speedy disposition of her case, guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court referenced Article III, Section 16 of the Constitution, which states:

SEC. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

However, the Court clarified that “speedy disposition” is a relative term and not merely a matter of mathematical calculation. The determination of whether the right has been violated requires consideration of the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Factors to consider include the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the defendant’s assertion or failure to assert the right, and the prejudice caused by the delay.

In Yulo’s case, the Court found that the delay was sufficiently explained by the Court of Appeals. The original ponente, Associate Justice Jainal D. Rasul, retired during the pendency of the motion for reconsideration. The case was reassigned to Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole, who resolved the motion within two weeks of receiving it. The Supreme Court, therefore, ruled that there was no violation of Yulo’s right to a speedy trial.

Turning to the second issue, Yulo contended that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt because not all the elements of the offense under B.P. Blg. 22 were established. Specifically, she argued that she did not receive notice of dishonor and that she merely lent the checks to Josefina. The Supreme Court dismissed these arguments, reaffirming the elements of the offense penalized by B.P. Blg. 22:

1. The making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for 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 insufficient funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.

The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the prosecution had successfully proven all the elements of the offense. Yulo admitted to issuing the checks for value, intending them to be encashed. She also admitted knowing that she had insufficient funds in her account and that her BPI account was closed. The Supreme Court underscored that B.P. Blg. 22 penalizes the issuance of a bouncing check, not the non-payment of an obligation. As cited in Ibasco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117488, September 5, 1996:

It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes, but the act of making and issuing a check that is dishonored upon presentment for payment.

The purpose for which the check was issued and the terms and conditions relating to its issuance are immaterial under B.P. Blg. 22. What matters is that the issued checks were worthless, and the issuer knew of their worthlessness at the time of issuance. The Court emphasized that under B.P. Blg. 22, the mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum, meaning it is wrong because it is prohibited by law.

Furthermore, the Court rejected Yulo’s argument regarding the lack of notice of dishonor. The Court noted that Roque had no reason to distrust Yulo, as Josefina Dimalanta had vouched for her as a “best friend” and “good payer.” Therefore, it was natural for Roque to contact Josefina when the checks bounced. Josefina promised to inform Yulo about the dishonored checks, fulfilling the requirement of notice.

The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be disturbed unless the trial court overlooked certain facts and circumstances that could substantially affect the outcome of the case. The Court found no such oversight in this instance.

Finally, the Court addressed the argument that Roque was the sole witness for the prosecution. The Court clarified that there is no legal requirement for the testimony of a single witness to be corroborated. As stated in People v. Pirame, 384 Phil. 286, 297 (2000):

The rule in this jurisdiction is that the testimony of witnesses is weighed, not numbered, and the testimony of a single witness, if found trustworthy and credible, as in this case, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which sustained the trial court’s joint decision in the criminal cases against Yulo. This case underscores the strict liability imposed by B.P. Blg. 22 and the importance of ensuring sufficient funds when issuing checks.

FAQs

What is Batas Pambansa Blg. 22?	Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, penalizes the issuance of checks without sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank. It aims to prevent fraud and ensure stability in commercial transactions.
What are the elements of a violation of B.P. Blg. 22?	The elements are: (1) issuance of a check for account or value; (2) knowledge by the issuer of insufficient funds at the time of issuance; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check by the bank due to insufficient funds or a closed account.
Is it a valid defense to say that the check was merely lent to someone else?	No, it is not a valid defense. The law focuses on the act of issuing a bouncing check, not the purpose for which it was issued. Knowledge of insufficient funds at the time of issuance is the key element.
Does the payee need to directly notify the issuer of the dishonor?	Not necessarily. Notice to an intermediary who promises to inform the issuer can be sufficient, especially if there is a pre-existing relationship or assurance of trustworthiness.
What does “malum prohibitum” mean in the context of B.P. Blg. 22?	“Malum prohibitum” means that the act is wrong because it is prohibited by law, regardless of whether it is inherently immoral or harmful. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is punishable under B.P. Blg. 22.
Can a conviction be based on the testimony of a single witness?	Yes, the testimony of a single witness, if credible and trustworthy, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The law weighs the quality of the testimony, not the number of witnesses.
What factors are considered when evaluating a claim of violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases?	The length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the defendant’s assertion or failure to assert the right, and the prejudice caused by the delay are considered.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for check issuers?	Issuers must ensure they have sufficient funds when issuing checks. Ignorance or reliance on third parties is not an excuse for issuing a bouncing check.
What happens if the ponente in the Court of Appeals retires during the pendency of a motion for reconsideration?	The case will be reassigned to another Justice, and the delay caused by the reassignment is generally considered a valid reason for the delay in resolving the motion.

This case illustrates the importance of due diligence when issuing checks and the strict liability imposed by B.P. Blg. 22. It serves as a reminder that individuals cannot escape liability by claiming ignorance or by relying on the assurances of third parties. Check issuers must take responsibility for ensuring that their checks are backed by sufficient funds.

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: LILANY YULO Y BILLONES v. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 142762, March 04, 2005