TL;DR
The Supreme Court affirmed that issuing a bouncing check, even as a guarantee or with a promise of future funding, is a violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22), also known as the Bouncing Checks Law. Angelina Zabala Alonto was found guilty of violating BP 22 for issuing checks that were dishonored due to a closed account, despite her claim that the checks were merely a guarantee. This ruling emphasizes that the law makes no distinction between checks issued as payment and those issued as guarantees; the act of issuing a check with insufficient funds is the offense. However, one count was reversed because of a discrepancy in the check date. This case highlights the importance of ensuring sufficient funds when issuing checks, regardless of the purpose, and underscores the strict liability imposed by BP 22.
Jewelry, Bad Checks, and a Broken Deal: Who Pays When Guarantees Bounce?
This case revolves around a series of jewelry transactions between Angelina Zabala Alonto and Violeta E. Tizon. Alonto purchased jewelry and issued several checks as payment, some of which bounced. The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether Alonto could be held liable for violating B.P. 22, despite her argument that the checks were issued merely as a guarantee and not as direct payment for the jewelry. The core question is: Does the intent behind issuing a check—whether for payment or guarantee—affect liability under the Bouncing Checks Law?
The prosecution successfully established the elements of a B.P. 22 violation. Alonto issued checks to apply on account or for value, knowing she lacked sufficient funds, and the checks were subsequently dishonored. The defense argued that the checks were intended as a guarantee, a claim the Court rejected. The Court emphasized the broad scope of B.P. 22, stating that the law doesn’t distinguish between checks issued for payment and those issued as guarantees. The pivotal element is the act of issuing a check knowing that funds are insufficient.
Section 1 of B.P. 22 states: “Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment… shall be punished by imprisonment… or by a fine… or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.”
The Court cited previous jurisprudence to support its stance. A key principle is that B.P. 22 applies even when checks are issued as guarantees. The legislative intent is to create an all-encompassing prohibition, without exceptions for guarantees. Therefore, the critical factors are the deliberate issuance of checks to cover accounts and their subsequent dishonor upon presentment. This legal principle underscores the strict liability nature of B.P. 22, where the mere act of issuing a bouncing check is sufficient for conviction, regardless of intent or underlying agreement.
However, one aspect of the lower court’s decision faced scrutiny. A discrepancy arose regarding the date of one of the dishonored checks. The information in one of the criminal cases alleged the check was dated May 14, 1992, while the evidence presented showed a date of April 5, 1992. This variance was deemed a violation of Alonto’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the offense. The Court ruled that the identity and date of the check are essential elements of the offense, thus the conviction on this specific count could not stand.
In examining the defense of double jeopardy, the Court found it inapplicable. The earlier cases against Alonto in the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City involved a different check and were dismissed based on an Affidavit of Desistance. The current cases in Quezon City involved different checks issued after the dismissal of the previous cases. Since the offenses were based on distinct checks and incidents, the principle of double jeopardy did not apply. This ruling highlights the importance of understanding the specific elements that constitute double jeopardy and how they relate to the facts of each case.
The Court also addressed the argument that the Regional Trial Court lacked jurisdiction due to Republic Act No. 7691, which expanded the jurisdiction of lower courts. The Court noted that the Regional Trial Court had already acquired jurisdiction over the case before R.A. No. 7691 took effect. New legislation does not automatically divest a court of its jurisdiction over pending cases unless the statute explicitly states otherwise. Since R.A. No. 7691 did not expressly mandate such a transfer of jurisdiction, the Regional Trial Court retained the authority to hear and decide the case.
FAQs
| What is Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22)? | BP 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 maintain confidence in the banking system and deter the practice of issuing worthless checks. |
| Can a person be convicted under BP 22 even if the check was issued as a guarantee? | Yes, the Supreme Court has consistently held that BP 22 applies regardless of whether the check was issued as payment or as a guarantee. The critical element is the knowledge of insufficient funds at the time of issuance. |
| What are the elements of a BP 22 violation? | The elements are: (1) making, drawing, and issuing a check; (2) knowing at the time of issue that there are insufficient funds; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check by the bank due to insufficiency of funds. |
| What is double jeopardy? | Double jeopardy prevents an accused person from being tried twice for the same offense. For double jeopardy to apply, there must be a prior valid indictment, arraignment, plea, and either conviction, acquittal, or dismissal of the case without the accused’s consent. |
| What happens if there is a discrepancy in the date of the check as alleged in the information and the evidence presented? | A discrepancy in the date of the check can be a violation of the accused’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the offense, potentially leading to acquittal on that specific count. |
| Does a change in the law affect a court’s jurisdiction over a case already being heard? | Generally, no. If a court has already acquired jurisdiction over a case, it retains that jurisdiction until the case is finally resolved, unless the new law explicitly states that it applies to pending cases. |
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Alonto v. People reinforces the strict application of the Bouncing Checks Law, emphasizing that good faith or intent to guarantee does not excuse the issuance of checks with insufficient funds. While one count was overturned due to a technicality, the core principle remains: issuers of checks must ensure sufficient funds to cover their obligations. This case serves as a cautionary tale for all who issue checks, highlighting the serious legal consequences of non-compliance with B.P. 22.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.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: Angelina Zabala Alonto v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 140078, December 09, 2004
Leave a Reply