G.R. No. 133325 ; June 30, 2000
Felipa B. Cueme, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Felipa B. Cueme, General Manager of Mark-Agro Trading Corporation, was charged with fifteen violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). The complainant, Helen Simolde, a bank teller and a friend of Cueme, alleged she lent various sums of money to Cueme for which the latter issued fifteen post-dated crossed checks drawn against the account of Mark-Agro Trading Corporation. Upon presentment, all checks were dishonored for being “drawn against insufficient funds” (DAIF). Despite repeated demands, Cueme failed to make good the checks.
Cueme presented a different version. She denied borrowing money from Simolde, claiming the funds were from corporate investors. She alleged she did not personally issue the checks to Simolde. Instead, she contended that Simolde procured pre-signed blank checks from Cueme’s secretary, Leonora Gabuan, who filled them out only to show prospective investors, not for encashment. Gabuan corroborated this, testifying she reluctantly gave blank checks to Simolde for that specific purpose upon her insistence.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Felipa B. Cueme is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating B.P. Blg. 22.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 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) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit. All elements were established. The checks were undoubtedly issued, as Cueme admitted signing them. Her defense that they were merely signed in blank and improperly filled by Simolde does not negate issuance. By signing the checks, she authorized their completion and is presumed to have knowledge of their contents. The law does not require the checks to be filled by the drawer personally.
The claim that the checks were issued without consideration and only for exhibition to investors was correctly rejected by the lower courts. The trial court found Simolde’s testimony credible, establishing the checks were issued to cover loans. The offense is malum prohibitum; the act of issuing a worthless check is punishable regardless of the purpose or intent behind its issuance. Knowledge of insufficiency of funds is presumed from the dishonor. The Court also affirmed the appellate court’s modification of the fine in one case to the statutory maximum of P200,000, as the law caps the fine at that amount.