G.R. No. 119178 June 20, 1997
LINA LIM LAO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Lina Lim Lao was a junior officer at the Binondo branch of Premiere Investment House. As part of her regular duties, she was authorized to co-sign checks for the corporation. The procedure was for her to sign blank checks in advance, leaving the payee name, amount, and date to be filled in later by her head of office, Teodulo Asprec. Petitioner had no knowledge of the actual funds available in the corporate account, as monitoring and funding the checks were the responsibility of the Treasury Department at the main office in Cubao. Three checks co-signed by petitioner and Asprec, issued to complainant Fr. Artelijo Palijo as payment for investments, were dishonored upon presentment for the reason “Drawn Against Insufficient Funds.” After demands, a formal letter of demand was sent to Premiere’s main office. Premiere was later placed under receivership. Informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22) were filed against Lao and Asprec. The Regional Trial Court convicted Lao in two cases but acquitted her in one. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

1. May an employee who, as part of her regular duties, signs blank corporate checks without actual knowledge of whether such checks are funded, be held criminally liable for violation of B.P. 22 when the checks are dishonored?
2. Does a notice of dishonor sent to the main office of the corporation constitute valid notice to the employee who holds office in a separate branch and had no actual knowledge thereof?

RULING

1. No. The Court ruled that petitioner cannot be held criminally liable. The elements of the offense under B.P. 22 require that the accused must have knowledge of the insufficiency of funds at the time of issuance of the check. Petitioner, as a junior officer who merely signed blank checks as part of her routine duties without involvement in the transaction or knowledge of the account balance, did not possess the requisite knowledge. The prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds under the law was sufficiently rebutted by evidence showing she had no duty to monitor the account and that such responsibility belonged to the Treasury Department at the main office.
2. No. The notice of dishonor sent to the corporation’s main office did not constitute valid notice to petitioner. For the notice requirement under B.P. 22 to be satisfied, the notice must be sent to the drawer of the check. Constructive knowledge on the part of the corporation is not equivalent to knowledge on the part of the employee-signatory who works in a separate branch. Since petitioner did not have actual knowledge of the notice of dishonor, an essential element of the offense was not proven. The acquittal of petitioner is warranted.