G.R. No. 143231 ; October 26, 2001
Alberto Lim, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Alberto Lim was convicted for twelve counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law). The cases stemmed from twelve Metrobank checks, issued to private complainant Robert Lu in May 1992 for rediscounting, which were dishonored upon presentment for the reason “Account Closed.” After receiving notice of dishonor and a subsequent formal demand, Lim failed to make payment within the prescribed period.
For his defense, Lim contended that the checks lacked valuable consideration. He alleged they were part of a series of replacement checks issued to accommodate an obligation of Sarangani Commercial, Inc. to Lu, for which he acted as guarantor. He argued that the total payments made from other replacement checks had already exceeded the original principal obligation, thereby extinguishing the consideration for the twelve subject checks.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner’s conviction for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 should be set aside on the ground that the checks were issued without valuable consideration.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of B.P. Blg. 22 as a malum prohibitum offense. The elements for violation are: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of a check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check. The Court ruled that the first element was conclusively established. The law presumes that a check was issued for valuable consideration. This presumption, under the Rules of Court, stands unless contradicted and overcome by sufficient evidence.
The petitioner’s defense of lack of consideration failed to overturn this presumption. His claim that the obligation had been fully paid by other checks pertained to the civil aspect of the transaction. In a prosecution for B.P. Blg. 22, the criminal liability arises from the act of issuing a bouncing check, not from the purpose or perfection of the underlying obligation. The offense is complete upon the issuance of a worthless check. The Court emphasized that the law is designed to safeguard the integrity of commercial transactions, and criminal intent is immaterial for this statutory crime. Therefore, the existence or non-existence of valuable consideration for the specific checks issued does not negate the commission of the offense, as the checks were indisputably issued and subsequently dishonored.