G.R. No. 154128 ; February 8, 2007
DR. AMANDA T. CRUZ, Petitioner, vs. WILFREDO R. CRUZ, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Wilfredo R. Cruz filed a complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against petitioner Dr. Amanda T. Cruz, his aunt by affinity. He alleged that petitioner issued an undated check for ₱100,000.00, which he dated December 29, 1995, and deposited. The check was dishonored due to “account closed.” After sending a notice of dishonor on January 5, 1996, respondent later discovered that petitioner deposited ₱100,000.00 into his account on January 16, 1996. Petitioner, in her defense, claimed the check was issued in 1986 as a guarantee for a loan from respondent to third parties, which was later paid, and she had forgotten about the check after closing her account in 1987.
The Assistant City Prosecutor recommended dismissal of the complaint, finding that full payment of the check had been made before the complaint was filed, thus removing it from the punitive scope of B.P. 22. This was approved by the City Prosecutor, and subsequent appeals to the Chief State Prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice affirmed the dismissal. However, the Court of Appeals reversed these findings and directed the filing of an information against petitioner, prompting this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in directing the Secretary of Justice to file an information for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against the petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the resolutions dismissing the case. The legal logic centers on the absence of probable cause and the purpose of B.P. Blg. 22. Preliminary investigation is an inquiry to determine if there is sufficient ground to believe a crime was committed and the respondent is probably guilty. Here, the investigating prosecutor, City Prosecutor, Chief State Prosecutor, and Secretary of Justice uniformly found no probable cause because petitioner had fully paid the check’s amount eleven days after notice of dishonor and nearly six months before the complaint was filed. Respondent himself admitted this payment in his pleadings.
While the gravamen of B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of issuing a worthless check, the law’s spirit is to curb practices injurious to public interest and the banking system. Citing Griffith v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that charging a debtor criminally long after collection of the check amount is untenable. Since payment was made promptly, no injury was caused to public interest, the banking system, or the private complainant. Thus, the prosecutors’ finding of lack of probable cause, being well-founded, should not be disturbed.