GR 132552; (July, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132552 ; July 14, 2004
CLARO E. NARTE and WINSTON TOMAS L. CADHIT, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, FIRST DIVISION and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Claro Narte and Winston Cadhit, as General Manager and Purchasing Manager of Norphil Transport Corporation, respectively, purchased three buses from spouses Delia and Emilio Cabrera for P2,220,000. Payment was made via ten postdated checks issued by the petitioners and payable to Emilio Cabrera. Upon presentment, all checks were dishonored: one for insufficiency of funds and the rest because the account was closed. The spouses made demands, but the petitioners failed to make payment.
The defense claimed a different factual backdrop. They asserted they dealt with an Emilio Cabrera, Jr., believing him to be the owner, and issued the checks in his name. They later discovered the buses were registered to Delia Cabrera and requested the return of the checks for re-issuance in her name. They alleged the checks were instead given to Emilio Cabrera, Sr., who was not the intended payee, and that his involvement in the deed of sale was fabricated.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners are guilty of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22), notwithstanding their claim that the complainant was not the intended payee of the checks.
RULING
Yes, the petitioners are guilty. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the convictions. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of B.P. 22 as a malum prohibitum offense. The Court reiterated that the law punishes the mere act of issuing a check that is subsequently dishonored for insufficiency of funds or because the account is closed. The elements of the offense are: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank.
The petitioners’ defense regarding the identity of the payee is immaterial to establishing a violation. Their own admission that the checks were issued as payment for the purchased buses confirms the checks were issued for value. The offense is complete upon the issuance of a worthless check, and the surrounding agreements or intent are irrelevant. The factual findings of the lower courts, which concluded all elements were proven, are binding. Finally, the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay the fine is proper under the Revised Penal Code, as clarified by Administrative Circular No. 13-2001.