G.R. No. 138197 , November 27, 2002
MA. ELIZA C. GARCIA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ma. Eliza C. Garcia, a stockbroker, convinced private complainant Carl Valentin to invest in the stock market. In the course of their dealings, Garcia issued to Valentin two postdated checks: City Trust Check No. 057066 dated January 8, 1996 for P323,113.50, and Check No. 057067 dated January 24, 1996 for P146,886.50. Both checks were dishonored upon presentment for the reason “Account Closed.” Valentin notified Garcia of the dishonor, and she promised to pay within three months but subsequently issued another bouncing check for P100,000. Despite demands, Garcia failed to pay, leading to the filing of two criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). The Metropolitan Trial Court convicted Garcia, sentencing her to one year imprisonment and a fine equal to the check amounts, plus payment of the check values as civil indemnity. The Regional Trial Court affirmed the conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but reduced the fine in Criminal Case No. 21632 to P200,000. Garcia appealed to the Supreme Court, contending the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically the identity of the check issuer, and that the penalty imposed was erroneous.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution failed to prove a violation of B.P. 22.
2. Whether the penalty imposed is erroneous.

RULING

1. No, the prosecution did not fail to prove a violation of B.P. 22. All elements of the offense are present: (a) Garcia issued the checks to apply on account or for value; (b) she knew at the time of issue that she did not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank, as the account was closed; and (c) the checks were dishonored upon presentment. Garcia did not categorically deny issuing or signing the checks. Private complainant Valentin positively identified her as the issuer, and her signatures on the checks matched those on confirmation slips she issued. Section 3 of B.P. 22 provides that the introduction of the unpaid and dishonored check constitutes prima facie proof of its making or issuance, presentment, and dishonor. Garcia failed to present proof to overcome this presumption. The factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the appellate court, are binding and supported by the evidence.
2. The Supreme Court modified the penalty. The decision of the Court of Appeals was AFFIRMED with modification. Garcia is ordered to pay private complainant Carl W. Valentin the face values of the checks (P323,113.50 in Criminal Case No. 21632 and P146,886.50 in Criminal Case No. 21633) as restitution, plus legal interest of 6% per annum from the filing of the respective informations until fully paid. She is further ordered to pay a fine of P200,000 for each violation of B.P. 22, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of nonpayment.