G.R. No. 148557; August 7, 2003
FELICITO ABARQUEZ, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Felicito Abarquez was convicted for five counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). He issued five checks to Fertiphil Corporation, all of which were dishonored upon presentment. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty on all counts, imposing imprisonment and ordering indemnification. The Court of Appeals affirmed but modified the penalty, deleting imprisonment and imposing a fine double the total value of the checks pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 12-2000.
Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, raising specific defenses for each check. For two checks, he claimed he made payments after dishonor but before receiving any formal notice of dishonor from the payee. For another check, he argued it was dishonored for “Drawn Against Uncollected Deposits” (DAUD), not for insufficiency of funds (DAIF). For the remaining two high-value checks, he contested the penalty, arguing the fine imposed exceeded the statutory maximum.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether payment made after dishonor but before notice of dishonor exonerates the drawer; (2) whether a check dishonored for DAUD constitutes a violation of BP 22; and (3) whether the fine imposed can exceed the statutory cap of P200,000.00 per check under the law.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. On the first issue, the Court acquitted petitioner for the two checks where he made payment prior to receiving notice of dishonor. The law requires that the drawer must fail to make good the check within five banking days from notice of dishonor. Payment made before such notice is received negates the element of fault. On the second issue, the Court upheld the conviction for the check dishonored for DAUD. The legal logic is that “uncollected deposit” signifies the drawer had no sufficient available funds at the time of presentment, which is functionally equivalent to insufficiency of funds under the law. The offense is committed upon the issuance of a worthless check, and the specific reason for dishonor (DAIF or DAUD) is immaterial if it proves the check was unfunded.
Regarding the penalty, the Court modified the fines. While BP 22 allows a fine of up to double the face value of the check, it explicitly caps the fine at P200,000.00. Therefore, for the two high-value checks, the fine was reduced to the maximum of P200,000.00 each. The Court affirmed the conviction for three counts but acquitted for two, and corrected the fines to comply with the statutory limit.