GR 152881; (August, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152881 ; August 17, 2004
ENGR. BAYANI MAGDAYAO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Engr. Bayani Magdayao was charged with violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). The Information alleged that on September 30, 1991, in Dipolog City, he issued PNB Check No. 399967 for P600,000.00 to Ricky Olvis, knowing he had insufficient funds. The check was dishonored upon presentment. During trial, the petitioner and his counsel repeatedly failed to appear. The prosecution presented Olvis, who testified that the check was issued to pay an obligation and was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. The original check was returned to the petitioner when he promised to replace it with two other checks, which promise he also failed to fulfill. Consequently, only a photocopy of the dishonored check was presented and admitted in evidence.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the conviction based on a photocopy of the check and uncorroborated testimony, without the petitioner being positively identified in court, is valid.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the admissibility of the photocopy, the Court ruled that the original check’s unavailability was sufficiently explained, as it had been returned to the petitioner. Under the Rules of Court, a secondary evidence like a photocopy is admissible when the original is lost or cannot be produced in court. The petitioner’s failure to object to its presentation during trial constituted a waiver of any objection. Regarding the lack of positive identification, the Court held that the petitioner’s repeated absences during trial, which prevented his in-court identification, were deliberate and constituted a waiver of his right to confront the witness. His failure to present contrary evidence further strengthened the prosecution’s case. The elements of BP 22 were duly proven: the check was issued, it was dishonored for insufficient funds, and the drawer had knowledge of the insufficiency at the time of issue. The penalty of imprisonment imposed by the lower courts was upheld, as the discretion to impose a fine instead is not absolute and depends on the circumstances, which in this case did not warrant leniency.