8/11/2019 04. Bautista v. CA (2001)

1/4

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 143375 July 6, 2001

RUTH D. BAUT STA,petitioner,vs.COURT O! APPEA"S, O!! CE O! THE REG ONA" STATE PROSECUTOR,REG ON #, $%& SUSAN A"O'A,respondents.

BE""OS ""O, J.:

his petition for certiorari presents a ne! di"ension in the ever controversial #atasPa"bansa #ilan$ %% or The Bouncing Checks Law . he &uestion posed is !hetherthe dra!er of a chec' !hich is dishonored due to lac' of sufficient funds can beprosecuted under #P %% even if the chec' is presented for pa("ent after ninet( )*+da(s fro" its due date. he bur$eonin$ -urisprudence on the "atter appears silent on

this point.

So"eti"e in pril /**0 petitioner Ruth D. #autista issued to private respondentSusan lo1a Metroban' Chec' No. ++2+/3+45 dated 0 Ma( /**0 for P/,2++,+++.++dra!n on Metroban' Cavite Cit( #ranch. ccordin$ to private respondent, petitionerassured her that the chec' !ould be sufficientl( funded on the "aturit( date.

On %+ October /**0 private respondent presented the chec' for pa("ent. hedra!ee ban' dishonored the chec' because it !as dra!n a$ainst insufficient funds)D I6 .

On /7 March /*** private respondent filed a co"plaint8affidavit !ith the Cit(Prosecutor of Cavite Cit(. / In addition to the details of the issuance and the dishonorof the chec', she also alle$ed that she "ade repeated de"ands on petitioner to"a'e arran$e"ents for the pa("ent of the chec' !ithin five )2 !or'in$ da(s afterreceipt of notice of dishonor fro" the ban', but that petitioner failed to do so.

Petitioner then sub"itted her o!n counter8affidavit assertin$ in her defense thatpresent"ent of the chec' !ithin ninet( )*+ da(s fro" due date thereof !as anessential ele"ent of the offense of violation of #P %%. Since the chec' !as presentedfor pa("ent /77 da(s after its due date, it !as no lon$er punishable under #P %%and therefore the co"plaint should be dis"issed for lac' of "erit. She also clai"edthat she alread( assi$ned private respondent her condo"iniu" unit at ntel Seavie!Condo"iniu", Ro9as #oulevard, as full pa("ent for the bounced chec's thuse9tin$uishin$ her cri"inal liabilit(.

On %% pril /***, the investi$atin$ prosecutor issued a resolution reco""endin$ thefilin$ of an Information a$ainst petitioner for violation of #P %%, !hich !as approvedb( the Cit( Prosecutor.

On /4 Ma( /*** petitioner filed !ith the Office of the Re$ional State Prosecutor)ORSP for Re$ion IV a petition for revie! of the %% pril /*** resolution. he ORSPdenied the petition in a one )/ 8pa$e resolution dated %2 :une /***. On 2 :ul( /***petitioner filed a "otion for reconsideration, !hich the ORSP also denied on 4/

u$ust /***. ccordin$ to the ORSP, onl( resolutions of prosecutors dis"issin$ acri"inal co"plaint !ere co$ni;able for revie! b( that office, citin$ Depart"ent OrderNo. %%4.

On / October /*** petitioner filed !ith the Court of ppeals a petition for revie! ofthe resolution of the ORSP, Re$ion IV, dated %% pril /*** as !ell as the order dated4/ u$ust /*** den(in$ reconsideration. he appellate court issued the assailedResolution dated %7 October /*** den(in$ due course outri$ht and dis"issin$ thepetition. % ccordin$ to respondent appellate court 8

A petition for review is appropriate under Rule 42 ( !!" Rules of Civil#rocedure$ from a decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered in thee%ercise of its appellate &urisdiction' filed in the Court of Appeals Rule 4) %

% % provides for appeal' via a petition for review % % % from &udgment or finalorders of the Court of Ta% Appeals and *uasi+,udicial Agencies to the Court of Appeals #etitioner-s .#etition for Review. of the /R0# resolution doesnot fall under an1 of the agencies mentioned in Rule 4) % % % % It is worth tonote that petitioner in her three ()$ assigned errors charged the /R0# of.serious error of law and grave a use of discretion . The grounds reliedupon 1 petitioner are proper in a petition for certiorari % % % % 3ven if etreat the .#etition for Review. as a petition for certiorari' petitioner failed toallege the essential re5uirements of a special civil action Besides' theremed1 of petitioner is in the Regional Trial Court' following the doctrine ofhierarch1 of courts % % % % (italics supplied$

6irst , so"e $round rules. his case !ent to t he Court of ppeals b( !a( of petition

for revie! under Rule 34 of the /**5 Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 34 applies to

8/11/2019 04. Bautista v. CA (2001)

2/4

closer scrutin( !ill sho! that preli"inar( investi$ation is ver( different fro" other&uasi8-udicial proceedin$s. &uasi8-udicial bod( has been defined as necessaril(, itsdecisions approvin$ the filin$ of a cri"inal co"plaint are not appealable to the Courtof ppeals under Rule 34. Since the ORSP has the po!er to resolve appeals !ithfinalit( onl( !here the penalt( prescribed for the offense does not e9ceed prisioncorreccional , re$ardless of the i"posable fine, /4 the onl( re"ed( of petitioner, in theabsence of $rave abuse of discretion, is to present her defense in the trial of the

case.

#esides, it is !ell8settled that the courts cannot interfere !ith the discretion of thefiscal to deter"ine the specificit( and ade&uac( of the offense char$ed. =e "a(dis"iss the co"plaint forth!ith if he finds it to be insufficient in for" or substance or if he finds no $round to continue !ith the in&uir(> or, he "a( other!ise proceed !iththe investi$ation if the co"plaint is, in his vie!, in due and proper for". /3

In the present recourse, not!ithstandin$ the procedural lapses, !e $ive due courseto the petition, in vie! of the novel le$al &uestion involved, to prevent further dela( ofthe prosecution of the cri"inal case belo!, and "ore i"portantl(, to dispel an( notionthat procedural technicalities are bein$ used to defeat the substantive ri$hts ofpetitioner.

Petitioner is accused of violation of #P %% the substantive portion of !hich reads 8

Section /. Chec's !ithout sufficient funds. 8 An1 person who makes ordraws and issues an1 check to appl1 on account or for value' knowing atthe time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with thedrawee ank for the pa1ment of such in full upon presentment' which check is su se5uentl1 dishonored 1 the drawee ank for insufficienc1 of funds orcredit or would have een dishonored for the same reason had not the

drawer' without an1 valid reason' ordered the ank to stop pa1ment' shalle punished 1 imprisonment of not less than thirt1 ()=$ da1s ut not morethan one ( $ 1ear or 1 a fine of not less than ut not more than dou le theamount of the check which fine shall in no case e%ceed Two >undredThousand #esos' or oth such fine and imprisonment at the discretion ofthe court

The same penalt1 shall e imposed upon an1 person who' having sufficientfunds in or credit with the drawee ank when he makes or draws and issuesa check' shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover thefull amount of the check if presented within a period of ninet1 (!=$ da1s fromthe date appearing thereon' for which reason it is dishonored 1 the drawee

ank % % % %)italics supplied .

n anal(sis of Sec. / sho!s that The Bouncing Checks Law penali;es t!o )%distinct acts@ 6irst , "a'in$ or dra!in$ and issuin$ an( chec' to appl( on account orfor value, 'no!in$ at the ti"e of issue that the dra!er does not have sufficient fundsin or credit !ith the dra!ee ban'> and, second , havin$ sufficient funds in or credit!ith the dra!ee ban' shall fail to 'eep sufficient funds or to "aintain a credit to cover the full a"ount of the chec' if presented !ithin a period of ninet( )*+ da(s fro" thedate appearin$ thereon, for !hich reason it is dishonored b( the dra!ee ban'. /2

In the first para$raph, the dra!er 'no!s that he does not have sufficient funds tocover the chec' at the t i"e of its issuance, !hile in the second para$raph, thedra!er has sufficient funds at the ti"e of issuance but fails to 'eep sufficient funds or "aintain credit !ithin ninet( )*+ da(s fro" the date appearin$ on the chec'. In both

instances, the offense is consu""ated b( the dishonor of the chec' for insufficienc(of funds or credit.

he chec' involved in the first offense is !orthless at the ti"e of issuance since thedra!er had neither sufficient funds in nor credit !ith the dra!ee ban' at the ti"e,!hile that involved in the second offense is $ood !hen issued as dra!er hadsufficient funds in or credit !ith the dra!ee ban' !hen issued. /7 Ander the firstoffense, the ninet( )*+ 8da( present"ent period is not e9pressl( provided, !hile suchperiod is an e9press ele"ent of the second offense. /5

6ro" the alle$ations of the co"plaint, it is clear that petitioner is bein$ prosecuted for violation of the first para$raph of the offense.

2

8/11/2019 04. Bautista v. CA (2001)

3/4

Petitioner asserts that she could not be prosecuted for violation of #P %% on thesi"ple $round that the sub-ect chec' !as presented /77 da(s after the date statedthereon. She cites Sec. % of #P %% !hich reads 8

Sec. %. Evidence of 'no!led$e of insufficient funds. 8 The making' drawingand issuance of a check pa1ment which is refused 1 the drawee ecauseof insufficient funds in or credit with such ank' when presented withinninet1 (!=$ da1s from the date of the check' shall e prima f acie evidence of

knowledge of such insufficienc1 of funds or credit unless such maker ordrawer pa1s the holder thereof the amount due thereon' or makesarrangements for pa1ment in full 1 the drawee of such check within five (?$

anking da1s after receiving notice that such check has not een paid 1the drawee )italics supplied .

Petitioner interprets this provision to "ean that the ninet( )*+ 8da( present"entperiod is an ele"ent of the offenses punished in #P %%. She asseverates that )b the "a'er, dra!er or issuer 'no!sat the ti"e of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit !ith the dra!eeban' for the pa("ent of such chec' in full upon its present"ent> and, )c the chec' issubse&uentl( dishonored b( the dra!ee ban' for insufficienc( of funds or credit or

!ould have been dishonored for the sa"e reason had not the dra!er, !ithout an(valid reason, ordered the ban' to stop pa("ent. %+

he ninet( )*+ 8da( period is not a"on$ these ele"ents. Section % of #P %% is clearthat a dishonored chec' presented !ithin the ninet( )*+ 8da( period creates a primafacie presu"ption of 'no!led$e of insufficienc( of funds, !hich is an essentialele"ent of the offense. Since 'no!led$e involves a state of "ind difficult to establish,the statute itself creates a prima facie presu"ption of the e9istence of this ele"ent

fro" the fact of dra!in$, issuin$ or "a'in$ a chec', the pa("ent of !hich !assubse&uentl( refused for insufficienc( of funds. %/ he ter" prima facie evidencedenotes evidence !hich, if une9plained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain theproposition it supports or to establish the facts, or to counterbalance the presu"ptionof innocence to !arrant a conviction. %%

he presu"ption in Sec. % is not a conclusive presu"ption that forecloses orprecludes the presentation of evidence to the contrar(. %4 Neither does the ter" primafacie evidence preclude the presentation of other evidence that "a( sufficientl( provethe e9istence or 'no!led$e of insufficienc( of funds or lac' of credit. Surel(, the la!is not so circu"scribed as to li"it proof of 'no!led$e e9clusivel( to the dishonor ofthe sub-ect chec' !hen presented !ithin the prescribed ninet( )*+ da( period. hedeliberations on the passa$e of #P %% )then 'no!n as Cabinet #ill No. * bet!een

the author, for"er Solicitor eneral Estelito P. Mendo;a, and #ataan sse"bl("anPablo Ro"an prove insi$htful 8

MR. ROM N@ 9 9 9 9 Ander Section /, !ho is the person !ho "a( be liableunder this Section ?ould it be the "a'er or the dra!er =o! about theendorser, Mr. Spea'er

MR. MENDO @ Fiable.

MR. ROM N@ he endorser, therefore, under Section / is char$ed !ith thedut( of 'no!in$ at the ti"e he endorses and delivers a chec' . . . .

:R :39

8/11/2019 04. Bautista v. CA (2001)

4/4