G.R. No. 137191 November 18, 2002
BEN B. RICO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Ben Rico, a “pakyaw” contractor, purchased construction materials on credit from Ever Lucky Commercial (ELC), represented by Victor Chan. He issued several postdated checks as payment, which were dishonored by the bank for “insufficiency of funds” or “closed account.” The dishonored checks, totaling P178,434.00, were: Check No. 04142 (P81,800.00); No. 1759806 (P25,000.00); No. 1759808 (P4,834.00); No. 1759810 (P39,000.00); No. 1759812 (P15,250.00); and No. 1759811 (P12,550.00). Consequently, petitioner was charged with five counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). The prosecution established the issuance and dishonor of the checks and that verbal demands for payment were made, but no formal written notice of dishonor was sent. In his defense, petitioner did not deny issuing and dishonor of the checks but claimed he had already paid the total amount, including interest, as evidenced by official receipts from ELC totaling P284,340.50. He admitted, however, that he did not retrieve the dishonored checks as they were not yet fully paid. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty on all counts, imposing imprisonment and ordering indemnification. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding the defense of payment untenable and ruling that verbal demands constituted sufficient notice of dishonor.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner’s guilt for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ACQUITTED petitioner Ben Rico on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court found that while the first element (issuance of a check) and third element (subsequent dishonor) of B.P. 22 were present, the second element—knowledge of the insufficiency of funds at the time of issue—was not sufficiently established. The prosecution failed to prove that a notice of dishonor was actually sent to and received by the petitioner. The Court ruled that mere verbal demands for payment are not equivalent to the notice of dishonor required by the law to create the prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds. Without proof of such notice, the presumption does not arise, and the prosecution’s evidence becomes incomplete. However, the Court ordered petitioner to pay private complainant the face value of the checks (P178,434.00) with 12% interest per annum from the filing of the informations until fully paid, maintaining his civil liability. The Court also found petitioner’s defense of payment untenable, noting it was illogical for him to have paid more than his outstanding obligations and that he failed to retrieve the dishonored checks if payment had been made.