First Division: Eliza T. Tan, Petitioner, vs. People of The Philippines, Respondent
First Division: Eliza T. Tan, Petitioner, vs. People of The Philippines, Respondent
First Division: Eliza T. Tan, Petitioner, vs. People of The Philippines, Respondent
For its
accomplishment for the month of November 1992, FMF was paid
FIRST DIVISION P23,739.09 by Eliza with Philtrust Bank Check No. A000913 dated February
28, 1993.
[ G. R. No. 141466, January 19, 2001
"Upon presentment for payment, however, subject check was dishonored.
ELIZA T. TAN, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, After receipt of the notice of dishonor, Fidel verbally notified Eliza and the
RESPONDENT. latter promised to pay. Later on, when Eliza still did not pay, Fidel sent her a
demand letter by registered mail. Failing to heed his demand letter, Eliza
DECISION was charged in court.
"Accused-appellant maintains that Philtrust Bank Check No. A000913 was "Quezon City, Philippines, May 24, 1996.
dishonored not because it was drawn against insufficient funds but precisely
because of her order to stop payment therefor. She stressed that although (S/T) DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
that bank had stamped "DAUD" in subject check upon its presentment on "Judge"[4]
March 2, 1993, she had sufficient funds to cover the check because at that In time, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.[5]
time, she had a credit limit of P25 million with Philtrust Bank. This allegation
was supported by Aileen Sy, representative of the Philippine Trust Bank who On October 22, 1999, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision
confirmed in Court that had there been no stop payment request received affirming "in its entirely" the decision of the trial court.[6]
by their bank as early as January 27, 1993, the amount of P23,739.09
covered by subject Philtrust Bank Check No. A000913 could have been Hence, this appeal.[7]
withdrawn on March 2, 1993 because of the available credit limit of P5
million. This was the reason why, at the dorsal portion of subject check is The issue raised is whether petitioner is guilty of violation of B.P. 22 because
written under the column Reason for Return, at No. 1 thereof: "Payment when she issued Philtrust Bank Check No. A000913 to FMF on February 28,
Stopped Funded." 1993, she knew that there were insufficient funds on deposit with the bank
to honor the check upon presentment.
"In rebuttal, the wife of Fidel, Erlinda S. Francisco, disputes the allegation of
Eliza who used to be her friend especially on her husband having allegedly The elements of the offense defined and penalized in Section 1 of Batas
received payment in cash in exchange for Philtrust Bank Check Nos. Pambansa Blg. 22 are:
A000904 and A0009013 and suspects the genuineness of Voucher No. 2028 "1. That a person makes or draws and issues any check.
dated March 30, 1992. For one, Mrs. Francisco asserts that whenever she
pays them (FMF) Eliza paid in checks and never in cash and vouchers were "2. That the check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account or for
already prepared typewritten unlike Voucher No. 2028 where the data are value.
handwritten. Secondly, after Eliza issued the two (2) checks in December
1992, Mrs. Francisco and her husband no longer saw accused-appellant, not "3. That the person who makes or draws and issues the check knows at the
even after the demand letter had been sent on March 18, 1993."[3] time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
On May 24, 1996, the trial court rendered a decision the dispositive portion drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment.
of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Eliza Tan "4. That the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of B.P. 22 and insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been dishonored for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to
stop payment."[8] [1]
In CA-G.R. CR No. 20470, promulgated on October 22, 1999, Villarama, Jr.,
In this case, the third and fourth elements of the offense charged were not J., ponente, Sandoval-Gutierrez and Brawner, JJ., concurring, Petition, Annex
established or proved. "A", Rollo, pp. 20-28.
[2]
In the first place, the bank's representative testified that petitioner's Petitioner is referred to as accused-appellant.
account at the time of the presentment of the check she issued was funded,
[3]
as she had a credit line to the extent of P25 million, much more than the Rollo, pp. 20-28, at pp. 21-23.
amount of the check issued.
[4]
Petition, Annex "F", Rollo, pp. 41-46, at p. 46.
In the second place, even without relying on the credit line, petitioner's
[5]
bank account covered the check she issued because even though there were Docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 20470.
some deposits that were still uncollected the deposits became "good" and
[6]
the bank certified that the check was "funded." Petition, Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 20-28.
[7]
Actually, the check in question was not issued without sufficient funds and Petition filed on February 1, 2000, Rollo, pp. 3-18. Considering the
was not dishonored due to insufficiency of funds.[9] What was stamped on comment of respondent, through the Solicitor General (Rollo, pp. 83-89), we
the check in question was "Payment Stopped-Funded" at the same time resolve to give due course to the petition.
"DAUD" meaning drawn against uncollected deposits. Even with uncollected
[8]
deposits, the bank may honor the check at its discretion in favor of favored Lao v. Court of Appeals, 274 SCRA 572, 584 [1997]; People v. Laggui, 171
clients, in which case there would be no violation of B.P. 22.[10] SCRA 305, 310 [1989]; Sycip v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125059, March 17,
2000; Rosa Lim v. People, G.R. No. 130038, September 18, 2000.
In fact, petitioner requested the bank to stop payment of the check for a
[9]
valid reason, namely, that the account has been paid in cash. Gutierrez v. Palattao, 354 Phil. 34 [1998].
[10]
IN VIEW WHEREOF, we REVERSE the appealed decision of the Court of Cf. Idos v. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 194, 208-209 [1998], citing Nieva
Appeals. v. Court of Appeals, 338 Phil. 529 [1997].
SO ORDERED.