GR 114823; (December, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 114823 December 23, 1999
NILO B. DIONGZON, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Nilo B. Diongzon, a sales supervisor for Filipro, Inc., was charged with three counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22). The prosecution alleged he issued three checks to Filipro, totaling P298,119.75, to cover questionable deliveries of goods to certain dealers. Upon presentment, the checks were dishonored: the first two due to signature discrepancies and the third for insufficiency of funds. During the investigation, some dealers denied receiving the goods or issuing the checks. Diongzon initially denied signing the first two checks but later admitted issuing the third check as a replacement for the second. He claimed he engaged in “credit riding,” a practice of allowing other dealers to use authorized credit lines, and that he issued the checks to accommodate them while awaiting their payments.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the petitioner is guilty of violating B.P. 22. Sub-issues include whether the checks were issued for value, whether the information charged more than one offense, and whether the issuance of a replacement check constituted novation that extinguished criminal liability.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic is clear: the gravamen of a B.P. 22 violation is the issuance of a worthless check. The Court found that the checks were indeed issued for value, as they were delivered to Filipro in payment for goods under delivery orders signed by the petitioner. His defense that the checks were merely accommodation instruments did not negate the fact of issuance and subsequent dishonor. The information validly charged three separate offenses arising from distinct acts of issuing three different checks. The Court also rejected the novation theory. While novation may extinguish civil liability, it does not automatically extinguish criminal liability for acts already consummated. Here, the replacement check was itself dishonored, and the petitioner’s promise to settle was an unfulfilled empty promise, which does not constitute novation that would absolve him. The Court modified the penalty, imposing subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay the fine, consistent with jurisprudence for violations of special laws like B.P. 22.