G.R. No. 130038 ; September 18, 2000
ROSA LIM, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

On August 25, 1990, petitioner Rosa Lim purchased jewelry worth ₱300,000.00 from Maria Antonia Seguan. In payment, Lim issued a Metrobank check dated August 25, 1990. The following day, August 26, Lim purchased additional jewelry valued at ₱241,668.00 and issued another Metrobank check, dated August 16, 1990, which was delivered to Seguan through Aurelia Nadera. Seguan deposited both checks, but they were dishonored by the drawee bank due to the account being closed. Despite formal notice and subsequent demands, Lim failed to make good on the checks.
Consequently, two Informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22) were filed against Lim. The Regional Trial Court found her guilty on both counts, sentencing her to one year imprisonment and a ₱200,000 fine for each violation, and ordering her to pay Seguan the value of the jewelry with interest, moral damages, and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in toto. Lim appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing she had no transaction with Seguan and that the checks were merely issued to Nadera as a security arrangement for jewelry received on a “sale or return” basis.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Rosa Lim’s conviction for two counts of violating B.P. 22.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties. The Court found all elements of B.P. 22 present: (1) the making and issuance of checks to apply on account or for value; (2) knowledge of insufficient funds at the time of issue; and (3) subsequent dishonor. The checks were issued for valuable consideration—the purchased jewelry—and their dishonor for a closed account is prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficiency under the law. Lim’s defense that the checks were merely security, not payment, was unavailing. The Court held that the checks were issued to settle an obligation, and the recipient’s identity (whether Seguan directly or through Nadera) was immaterial to the offense.
However, applying recent jurisprudence, the Court modified the penalty. Following the rule that imprisonment should be imposed only where the offender fails to pay the fine, and considering the civil liability for the dishonored checks had been adjudged, the Court set aside the prison terms. The sentence was reduced to a fine of ₱200,000 for each count, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The awards for moral damages and attorney’s fees were deleted for lack of sufficient basis, but the order for Lim to pay Seguan the value of the jewelry or return them was sustained.