G.R. No. 145498 ; January 17, 2005
BENJAMIN LEE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Benjamin Lee was charged with violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) for issuing a check that was subsequently dishonored. The check, UCPB Check No. 168341 dated July 24, 1993 for ₱980,000.00, was payable to Rogelio Bergado and was signed by Lee and Cesar Bautista. The check represented the amount of loans made by Bergado to Unlad Commercial Enterprises, plus interest. Upon presentment, the check was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason “Account Closed.” Demand letters were sent to Lee, but he failed to pay the amount or make arrangements for payment within five banking days after notice. Lee denied liability, claiming he was merely an accommodation party for Bautista, that he had signed blank checks years prior under an agreement that had been terminated, and that he had no knowledge of the specific transaction with Bergado.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether petitioner Benjamin Lee is criminally liable for violation of B.P. 22.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed petitioner’s conviction. The Court ruled that the elements of B.P. 22 were sufficiently established: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the 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 it would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment. The defense of being a mere accommodation party does not absolve one from criminal liability under B.P. 22. The law makes the act of issuing a worthless check malum prohibitum; the gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a check that is subsequently dishonored, not the purpose for which it was issued or the nature of the drawer’s liability. Petitioner’s act of signing the check as a co-drawer made him prima facie liable for its issuance. His knowledge of the insufficiency of funds was presumed from the dishonor of the check for “Account Closed,” a fact established by the prosecution. His failure to pay the amount or make arrangements within five banking days after receiving notice of dishonor completed his liability. His defenses pertained to the civil aspect of his relationship with Bautista but did not negate the criminal act defined by the statute.