GR 149995; (September 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149995; September 28, 2007
ISIDRO PABLITO M. PALANA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Isidro Pablito Palana was charged with violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law). The Information alleged that in September 1987, he issued a postdated check for ₱590,000.00 to private complainant Alex B. Carlos, knowing at the time of issue that he did not have sufficient funds. The check, dated February 15, 1988, was subsequently dishonored for insufficiency of funds, and petitioner failed to make payment within five banking days after receiving notice. Private complainant testified that the amount represented a loan, secured by the check. Petitioner, however, defended that the money was an investment in a business partnership and that he was tricked into issuing the unfunded check merely to show a supplier to secure raw materials.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether petitioner was guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22, and (2) whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) retained jurisdiction over the case.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed petitioner’s conviction and upheld the RTC’s jurisdiction. On jurisdiction, the Court ruled that it is determined by the law in force at the institution of the criminal action, not at arraignment. The Information was filed on August 19, 1991, prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7691, which expanded inferior court jurisdiction. At that time, B.P. Blg. 129 governed, and since the penalty for B.P. Blg. 22 includes imprisonment exceeding four years and two months, exclusive original jurisdiction was vested in the RTC.
On the merits, the Court found all elements of B.P. Blg. 22 present. The check was issued to apply on account or for value, as it secured a loan. The defense of a partnership investment was rejected, as the evidence showed the business was registered solely in petitioner’s name, and lending money does not constitute capital investment. The Court emphasized that the law does not require the check to be funded at the time of issuance; it penalizes the act of making or issuing a check knowing one has insufficient funds at the time of presentment. Petitioner’s admission that he knew the check was unfunded when issued and his failure to pay upon notice established his guilt. The penalty was modified: in lieu of imprisonment, a fine of ₱200,000.00 was imposed, and the civil indemnity was subject to legal interest.