G.R. No. 142762 . March 04, 2005
LILANY YULO y BILLONES, Petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Lilany Yulo, accompanied by Josefina Dimalanta, went to the house of private complainant Myrna Roque. Josefina introduced petitioner as her trustworthy best friend and requested Myrna to encash three checks issued by petitioner. Relying on this assurance, Myrna agreed. The checks were subsequently dishonored upon presentment for the reasons “Drawn Against Insufficient Funds” and “Account Closed.” Myrna informed Josefina, who reiterated her assurances but refused to provide petitioner’s address, promising instead to relay the information.
Petitioner admitted issuing the checks but denied any transaction with Myrna. She claimed she merely lent the checks to Josefina as “show money” for a jeweler, with an understanding they would not be deposited. She also admitted knowing she had no funds when she issued them. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of three counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law), which the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether petitioner’s right to a speedy disposition of cases was violated by the Court of Appeals’ three-year delay in resolving her motion for reconsideration; and (2) whether the courts erred in convicting her despite her defenses.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the right to a speedy disposition is a flexible concept. The delay, while lengthy, was not attended by vexatious, capricious, or oppressive circumstances. The Court of Appeals had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and petitioner failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice caused by it. Mere mathematical reckoning of time is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.
On the second issue, all elements of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 are present: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of a check; (2) knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue they do not have sufficient funds; and (3) subsequent dishonor by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or account closure. Petitioner’s admission that she knew she had no funds when she issued the checks satisfies the second element. Her defense that the checks were merely lent as “show money” and not intended for encashment is unavailing. The law punishes the act of issuing a worthless check, and the maker’s knowledge of insufficiency of funds is presumed from the dishonor. The transaction with Myrna was established through the latter’s credible and straightforward testimony, which the trial court found trustworthy. The factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding absent a showing of overlooked material facts. The testimony of a single credible witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction.