G.R. No. 219325 , February 17, 2021
Philippine National Bank, Petitioner, vs. Atty. Henry S. Oaminal, Respondent.

FACTS

Sometime in November 2001, petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB) filed a complaint-affidavit against respondent Atty. Henry S. Oaminal for six counts of Estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Ozamiz City. In a Joint Resolution dated January 11, 2002, the prosecutor recommended the filing of charges for violation of BP 22 but dismissed the Estafa complaints for insufficiency of evidence. Consequently, six Informations for violation of BP 22 were filed against the respondent before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Ozamiz City. The Informations alleged that the respondent issued several checks (Metrobank Check Nos. 1180025128, 1180041378, 1180041377, 1180041376, 1180041375, and 1180025129) on various dates between February 28, 2000, and February 28, 2001, in favor of PNB, which were dishonored upon presentment for the reason “Drawn Against Insufficient Funds” (DAIF), and that despite notice of dishonor and demands, the respondent failed to make good the checks.
The respondent filed a Motion for Reinvestigation and/or Motion to Quash/Dismiss, arguing that the Informations were defective for failing to allege that he received a notice of dishonor and that he failed to pay the amount of the check or make arrangements for its payment within five banking days from notice. The MTCC denied the motion. The respondent then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which was dismissed. Subsequently, the respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition and ordered the dismissal of the criminal cases. The CA ruled that the Informations were fatally defective for not alleging the specific dates when the respondent received the notices of dishonor and that he failed to pay within five banking days from such notice, which are essential elements of the offense under BP 22. PNB filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. Hence, PNB filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the criminal cases on the ground that the Informations were fatally defective for failing to allege with specificity the dates of receipt of the notices of dishonor and the respondent’s failure to pay within five banking days therefrom.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the allegations in the Informations were insufficient to constitute an offense under BP 22. Section 1 of BP 22 requires that the maker or drawer, after receiving notice that the check has been dishonored, fails to pay the holder the amount due thereon or to make arrangements for its payment in full within five banking days from such notice. The Court emphasized that an information must state every single act necessary to constitute the offense. The Informations in this case merely contained a sweeping allegation that “despite due notice of dishonor being made and demands to make good and pay the check, accused failed and continuously fails to make good and pay the holder of the said check the amount due thereon… and also failed to make an arrangement for the payment of the check in full by the drawee within five (5) banking days after receiving the notice of dishonor.” The Court ruled that this allegation was a mere conclusion of law. The Informations failed to allege the specific dates when the respondent received the notices of dishonor, which is crucial for determining whether he indeed failed to pay or make arrangements within the five-banking-day period. This omission rendered the Informations fatally defective. The Court cited jurisprudence, including the case of Villa Gomez v. People, which requires that the specific date of receipt of the notice of dishonor must be alleged to properly charge an offense under BP 22. Consequently, the dismissal of the criminal cases was proper.