GR 105461; (November, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 105461 November 11, 1993
MARLYN LAZARO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS (Eighth Division) and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Marlyn Lazaro was charged with Estafa and Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). The Regional Trial Court found her guilty of violating B.P. 22 and sentenced her to one year imprisonment and to indemnify the offended party, Rudy Chua, in the sum of Seventy-Two Thousand Pesos (P72,000.00). She was acquitted of Estafa. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. The evidence established that on October 13, 1989, petitioner received P90,000.00 from complainant Rudy Chua as advance payment for ordered goods. She made a partial delivery worth P18,000.00 and, as a refund for the undelivered balance of P72,000.00, issued Prudential Bank Check No. 599175 dated October 28, 1989. The check was dishonored upon deposit with the stamp “Account Closed.” Petitioner later indorsed another check from a different drawer, which was also dishonored. After demand and failure to pay, complaints were filed. Petitioner admitted receiving the money and issuing the check but contended her obligation was extinguished by a Deed of Sale dated November 29, 1989, wherein she conveyed her car to Chua, thus arguing no violation of B.P. 22 occurred as the complainant suffered no damage.
ISSUE
Whether the subsequent extinguishment of the obligation through a Deed of Sale (conveyance of a car) negates criminal liability for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that the mere act of issuing a worthless check constitutes the offense under B.P. 22, making it malum prohibitum. Prejudice or damage to the payee is not a prerequisite for conviction. The law’s intent is to curb the proliferation of worthless checks as a means of payment. The subsequent settlement of the obligation does not extinguish criminal liability, as the offense is consummated upon the issuance and subsequent dishonor of the check. The indemnity awarded (equivalent to the check amount) stands as civil liability arising from the offense, and the fine imposable under B.P. 22 is an additional penalty intended by law. Therefore, petitioner’s conviction and the order to indemnify were upheld.