G.R. No. 149937 ; June 21, 2007
Ismael F. Mejia, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Ismael F. Mejia, an attorney, borrowed a total of P50,000.00 from his client, Rodolfo M. Bernardo, Jr. To secure the loan, Mejia issued a Philippine National Bank (PNB) Check No. 156919 dated May 15, 1985, in the amount of P50,000.00 in favor of Bernardo. When the check became due, Mejia requested and was granted extensions for its encashment. Ultimately, on October 8, 1985, Bernardo deposited the check, but it was dishonored by the drawee bank due to “ACCOUNT CLOSED.” Bernardo sent a formal notice of dishonor and demand for payment, but Mejia failed to settle the amount. Consequently, an Information for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) was filed against Mejia.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Mejia of violating B.P. 22, sentencing him to pay a fine and ordering him to make civil restitution to Bernardo. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with a minor modification, deleting the award of attorney’s fees. Mejia’s motions for reconsideration were denied, prompting this Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision convicting petitioner Ismael F. Mejia for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the challenged Decision and Resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that all elements for a violation of B.P. 22 were duly proven: (1) Mejia made, drew, and issued the check to apply for value (as security for his loan); (2) he knew at the time of issue that he had no sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank, as his account was already closed; and (3) the check was subsequently dishonored upon presentment for the reason “ACCOUNT CLOSED,” and he failed to make good the check within five banking days from notice of dishonor.
The Court emphasized that the gravamen of the offense under B.P. 22 is the mere act of issuing a worthless check, making it a malum prohibitum. The purpose for which the check was issued, the terms of its issuance, or any surrounding agreements are irrelevant to the prosecution. To consider such factors would undermine the stability and commercial value of checks as currency substitutes. The factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to great weight and respect, and no compelling reason was shown to disturb them. While the Court acknowledged petitioner’s plea for sympathy due to personal hardships, it stressed that its duty is to apply the law, with clemency being a prerogative of the executive branch.