GR 142641; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 142641 ; July 17, 2006
PACIFICO B. ARCEO, JR., petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Pacifico B. Arceo, Jr. obtained loans totaling P150,000.00 from private complainant Josefino Cenizal. To cover the obligation, Arceo issued a postdated BPI Check. Upon maturity, Cenizal deferred deposit based on Arceo’s repeated promises to replace it with cash. After these promises failed, Cenizal presented the check for encashment on December 5, 1991. The check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Cenizal, through counsel, sent a demand letter giving Arceo three days to pay, but Arceo failed to settle. The original check and return slip were subsequently lost in a fire. An information for violation of BP 22 was filed against Arceo. The trial court convicted him, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
The primary issues are: (1) whether the prosecution’s failure to present the dishonored check in evidence due to its loss is fatal to the case; (2) whether presentment of the check 120 days after its date, allegedly beyond the 90-day period, absolves the drawer; and (3) whether the three-day notice in the demand letter, instead of five banking days, invalidates the charge.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Best Evidence Rule does not apply as the gravamen of BP 22 is the act of issuing a worthless check, not the content of the document itself. The due execution and existence of the check were sufficiently proven by Cenizal’s testimony and his affidavit of loss. On the second issue, the 90-day period in BP 22 is not an element of the offense but relates to the prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds. The check was presented within the reasonable period of six months recognized in banking practice; thus, the drawer’s duty to maintain sufficient funds remained. On the third issue, while the law requires a notice giving the drawer five banking days to pay, the three-day notice given here substantially complied with the law’s intent to afford the drawer an opportunity to make arrangements for payment. The petitioner’s failure to pay within that period sustains his liability. The Court found all elements of BP 22 present and duly proven.