G.R. No. 141669 ; February 28, 2005
Jaime Dico, petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jaime Dico, a credit card holder of Equitable Card Network, Inc., was charged with three counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) for issuing checks that were dishonored for reason “Account Closed.” The checks, with a total face value of P596,736.27, were issued to pay his credit card obligations. The prosecution established that the checks were issued and subsequently dishonored, and that a demand to make them good was made.
Dico admitted issuing the checks but presented a defense of good faith. He claimed there were inconsistencies in his credit card billings from Equitable. He testified that he had instructed the bank’s branch manager, Bernard Chua, not to present the checks for payment until these billing discrepancies were reconciled. His intent was to ensure he would pay only the correct amount, arguing he did not have the deliberate intent to issue worthless checks.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all elements of violation of B.P. 22, particularly the element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds at the time of issuance of the checks.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted Dico, reversing the lower courts’ decisions. The Court emphasized that for a conviction under B.P. 22, the prosecution must prove not only that a check was dishonored but also that the issuer had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds at the time of issuance. Knowledge is presumed from the dishonor of the check and the issuer’s failure to pay within five days from notice. However, this presumption is disputable.
The Court found that Dico successfully rebutted this presumption. His defense that he instructed the bank manager to hold the checks pending reconciliation of his account, if true, negates the criminal intent to issue a worthless check. His conduct indicated an attempt to ensure payment of the correct obligation, not an intent to defraud. The prosecution did not present evidence to refute this claim, such as testimony from Bernard Chua. Consequently, the element of knowledge was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. While Dico remains civilly liable for the value of one check (P200,000.00) which was not sufficiently covered by his instruction, his criminal liability was extinguished. The acquittal was based on reasonable doubt, not on a declaration of innocence.