GR 134498; (November, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 134498 November 13, 2001
Celia M. Meriz, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Celia M. Meriz, operating under the business name “Hi-Marc Needlecraft,” issued four postdated checks in 1988 in favor of Amelia Santos as part of her business loan obligations. The checks, with an aggregate amount of P188,400.00, were subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank due to “Insufficient Funds.” Santos sent a telegram on December 15, 1988, demanding payment within three days to avoid criminal action. A formal demand letter followed on January 5, 1990. Petitioner acknowledged this letter on January 12, 1990, requesting more time to settle due to poor business conditions but ultimately failed to make payment. Consequently, four informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 were filed against her.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for violation of B.P. 22, particularly regarding the sufficiency of the notice of dishonor and the rebuttal of the prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court held that all elements of B.P. 22 were present: the checks were issued, subsequently dishonored for insufficiency of funds, and the issuer received notice of dishonor but failed to pay within five banking days. The law creates a prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds upon dishonor, which is rebutted only by payment within five days from notice. Petitioner’s failure to pay, despite her written acknowledgment of the debt and plea for extension, conclusively established her liability. Regarding the notice of dishonor, the Court found no legal requirement for it to specify each check with particularity; a written notice suffices. The factual findings of the lower courts, which established that both a telegram and a demand letter were sent and received, are binding. However, applying the principle that penal laws be construed strictly against the state, and considering petitioner’s lack of criminal intent and the civil nature of the original obligation, the Court modified the penalty by deleting the one-year imprisonment and imposing a fine of P94,200.00 for each case, while affirming the civil indemnity.