GR 146238; (December, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146238; December 7, 2001
MA. ELENA LAGMAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Ma. Elena Lagman purchased jewelry from private complainant Delia Almarines. As payment, she issued several postdated checks. Six of these checks, issued in 1991, were subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds. After receiving a formal demand letter, Lagman failed to make the checks good. Consequently, she was charged with and convicted of six counts of violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law) by the Regional Trial Court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in toto.
Lagman appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that her liability was merely civil since the checks were issued as evidence of a pre-existing debt and that she had made substantial payments and returned some jewelry. She also contended that the penalty of imprisonment was improper given her efforts to settle the obligation.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner’s conviction for violation of B.P. 22 should be upheld, and if so, whether the penalty of imprisonment should be imposed.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court held that all elements of B.P. 22 were present: (1) the checks were issued to apply on account or for value; (2) the issuer knew at the time of issue that she did not have sufficient funds; and (3) the checks were subsequently dishonored. The law applies irrespective of whether the check was issued for a pre-existing obligation or a contemporaneous transaction. The fact of dishonor and the receipt of a notice of dishonor, which Lagman admitted, were sufficiently proven.
On the penalty, the Court applied its ruling in Vaca v. Court of Appeals and subsequent administrative circulars, which allow the imposition of a fine in lieu of imprisonment if such a penalty would better serve the interests of justice. The Court noted Lagman’s partial payments, return of some jewelry, and her efforts to settle the debt by issuing replacement checks, two of which were honored. These circumstances indicated a lack of malicious intent to defraud and a bona fide effort to fulfill her obligation. Therefore, deleting the prison term and imposing a fine equivalent to the face value of each dishonored check was deemed the proper and more equitable penalty.