The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Leodegario Bayani for violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), also known as the Bouncing Checks Law. The Court ruled that despite the admission of hearsay evidence, Bayani’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt due to his failure to object to the hearsay testimony and the presence of other corroborating evidence, such as the check being part of his issued booklet and his ambiguous denial of the signature. This decision reinforces the principle that failure to object to evidence at the proper time constitutes a waiver, and convictions under BP 22 can stand even with evidentiary challenges if sufficient corroborating evidence exists. Practically, this means individuals must promptly object to inadmissible evidence during trial, and the issuance of a check carries a presumption of valuable consideration unless proven otherwise.

From a Loan Request to a Legal Battle: Can a Bouncing Check Conviction Stand on Shaky Evidence?

The case revolves around Leodegario Bayani, who was accused of violating BP 22 for issuing a bouncing check to Dolores Evangelista. Evangelista claimed that Alicia Rubia, acting on Bayani’s behalf, presented her with a check in exchange for cash. When the check bounced due to insufficient funds, Evangelista pursued legal action against Bayani. The central legal question is whether Bayani’s conviction, based partly on hearsay evidence and challenged for lack of proven consideration, can be upheld.

Bayani argued that the trial court’s conviction was based on hearsay evidence since Evangelista’s testimony about Rubia’s statements was not based on Evangelista’s personal knowledge. Hearsay evidence, as defined by Section 36 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, is testimony whose probative value depends on the credibility of someone other than the witness. The court acknowledged that Evangelista’s testimony regarding Rubia’s statements constituted hearsay. However, the Court emphasized that Bayani’s failure to timely object to this testimony during the trial effectively waived his right to challenge its admissibility later.

Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court states evidence that has not been formally offered shall not be considered by the court. The court stated that the objection to the admissibility of Evangelista’s testimony was waived when the defense failed to immediately object to it. It is a long held view that “in failing to object to the testimony on the ground that it was hearsay, the evidence offered may be admitted”. The procedural misstep proved fatal to Bayani’s defense, preventing him from excluding the damaging testimony.

While the Court admitted the hearsay testimony due to the lack of objection, it clarified that admissibility does not equate to evidentiary weight. Hearsay evidence, even when admitted, has no probative value unless it falls under an exception to the hearsay rule. In this case, Evangelista’s testimony was considered an independently relevant statement, which is an exception to the hearsay rule. Such statements are admitted not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but merely to establish that the statement was made. The fact that Rubia made the statement to Evangelista was relevant to establishing the circumstances surrounding the check’s issuance and Bayani’s potential culpability.

The court found that Bayani’s conviction did not rest solely on Evangelista’s hearsay testimony. Other pieces of evidence corroborated Bayani’s involvement such as the subject check was included in the booklet of checks issued by the PSBank to petitioner and the subject check was made to apply to the account of petitioner whose name appears on the upper portion of the said check. Critically, Bayani did not definitively deny that the signature on the check was his. The court interpreted his ambiguous statements about the signature’s similarity as a tacit admission of authorship.

The elements of BP 22 were scrutinized, particularly the requirement that the check be issued “to apply for account or for value.” The elements are: (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 there are no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of 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 explained that issuing a check presumes valuable consideration and that the burden of proving lack of consideration lies with the issuer. This is supported by the Negotiable Instruments Law, which presumes that every party to an instrument acquired it for consideration. Bayani failed to provide convincing evidence to overcome this presumption.

The court highlighted that BP 22 punishes the act of issuing a bouncing check, regardless of the purpose for which it was issued. The law’s intent is to deter the proliferation of worthless checks, not to regulate the underlying transaction. The valuable consideration, in this case, was the exchange of the check for cash. Whether the check was issued as payment or guarantee is irrelevant under BP 22.

The totality of the evidence, including the admitted hearsay testimony, the corroborating circumstances, and Bayani’s failure to disprove consideration, convinced the court of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of the trial court’s conviction, reinforcing the strict liability imposed by BP 22 and the importance of timely objecting to inadmissible evidence. This case serves as a reminder that procedural lapses can have significant consequences, and the issuance of a check carries legal responsibilities that cannot be easily evaded.

FAQs

What is Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22)?	BP 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, penalizes the act of issuing a check knowing that there are insufficient funds to cover it. The law aims to prevent the circulation of worthless checks.
What is hearsay evidence?	Hearsay evidence is testimony or documents quoting persons who are not present in court. It is generally inadmissible unless an exception applies, as the person making the statement is not under oath and cannot be cross-examined.
What does it mean to waive an objection to evidence?	Waiving an objection means failing to object to the admission of evidence at the proper time during trial. Once an objection is waived, the evidence can be considered by the court, even if it would otherwise be inadmissible.
What is an independently relevant statement?	An independently relevant statement is an exception to the hearsay rule where the statement is admitted not to prove its truth, but merely to show that it was made. The fact that the statement was made is itself relevant to the case.
What are the elements of a violation of BP 22?	The elements are: (1) making, drawing, and issuing a check for account or value; (2) knowledge of insufficient funds at the time of issuance; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check due to insufficient funds.
What is the presumption regarding checks issued for value?	The law presumes that a check is issued for valuable consideration. The burden is on the issuer to prove that there was no consideration for the check.
Why was Leodegario Bayani convicted despite the hearsay evidence?	Bayani was convicted because he failed to object to the hearsay evidence during trial, and there was other evidence, such as his signature on the check and the check being from his booklet, that corroborated his guilt.
What is the significance of this case?	This case emphasizes the importance of timely objecting to inadmissible evidence and reinforces the strict liability imposed by BP 22. It highlights that convictions under BP 22 can be upheld even with evidentiary challenges if there is sufficient corroborating evidence.

This case illustrates the critical role of procedural rules in legal proceedings and the stringent consequences of violating the Bouncing Checks Law. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for those issuing checks and a reminder for legal practitioners to be vigilant in protecting their clients’ rights through timely and appropriate objections.

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: LEODEGARIO BAYANI v. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 155619, August 14, 2007