GR 146424; (November, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146424 November 18, 2005
ALBINO JOSEF, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and AGUSTIN ALARILLA, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Albino Josef, a shoe manufacturer, purchased materials from respondent Agustin Alarilla from June to August 1991. For these transactions, Josef issued 26 postdated checks drawn against his accounts with Associated Bank and Far East Bank & Trust Company. Upon presentment, all checks were dishonored due to the accounts being closed. After Alarilla’s demand, Josef issued a replacement set of checks, and Alarilla returned the original dishonored checks to Josef but retained photocopies. The replacement checks were also subsequently dishonored.
Consequently, Alarilla filed criminal complaints. After preliminary investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor filed 26 Informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) against Josef. The Regional Trial Court convicted Josef on all counts, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Josef admitted issuing the checks but claimed he had paid Alarilla in cash, contested the admission of photocopies of the checks as evidence, and argued he acted in good faith.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for 26 counts of violation of BP 22.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of BP 22 were present: (1) Josef issued the checks to apply on account or for value; (2) he had knowledge of insufficient funds, as the statutory presumption under the law was not rebutted; and (3) the checks were subsequently dishonored. Josef’s claim of cash payment was unsubstantiated and contradicted his act of issuing replacement checks. He failed to prove payment within five banking days from notice of dishonor.
Regarding the admissibility of the photocopies, the Court upheld the lower courts. The Best Evidence Rule was not violated because Josef, during trial, admitted the originals were in his possession and implicitly acknowledged the photocopies as faithful reproductions. The rule aims to prevent fraud, but no fraud existed as Josef had access to the originals and did not contest the accuracy of the copies. The penalty imposed was also proper under the circumstances. Thus, the conviction stands.