GR 125059; (March, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 125059 ; March 17, 2000
FRANCISCO T. SYCIP, JR., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Francisco T. Sycip, Jr. entered into a contract to sell with Francel Realty Corporation (FRC) for a townhouse unit. He issued 48 postdated checks to cover the monthly installments. After moving in, Sycip complained of defects and incomplete project features. He served notarial notices suspending payments pending FRC’s compliance with approved plans and filed a complaint with the HLURB. The HLURB ordered FRC to complete the project but dismissed the complaint regarding defects.
Despite the notices and pending HLURB proceedings, FRC presented the postdated checks for payment. Sycip issued stop-payment orders and eventually closed his checking account to avoid further bank charges. Consequently, six checks were dishonored for the reason “account closed.” FRC filed a criminal complaint for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22). The Regional Trial Court convicted Sycip, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner’s act of issuing the checks, which were subsequently dishonored, constitutes a violation of B.P. Blg. 22 under the circumstances where payment was suspended due to the seller’s alleged breach of contractual obligations.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the decision and ACQUITTED the petitioner. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of B.P. 22 as a malum prohibitum offense and the principle that a criminal act requires an element of fraud or deceit. The Court held that the petitioner’s issuance of the checks was not attended by fraud or bad faith. The checks were issued as a convenient mode of payment under a valid contract. His subsequent suspension of payment and issuance of stop-payment orders were based on a legitimate grievance regarding FRC’s failure to fulfill its contractual duties, a matter subject to HLURB jurisdiction.
The Court emphasized that B.P. 22 was designed to prevent the fraudulent issuance of worthless checks. Here, the checks were not issued to deceive or defraud. The closure of the account was a direct consequence of FRC’s continued presentment of checks despite the valid notice of suspension, forcing the petitioner to close the account to avoid penalties. His actions constituted a valid exercise of his right to suspend payment under Article 1590 of the Civil Code due to the seller’s breach. Therefore, the element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds, which is prima facie established by the dishonor, was sufficiently rebutted. The petitioner’s intent was not to issue a worthless check but to compel compliance with the contract, negating criminal liability under B.P. 22.