G.R. No. 154438 September 5, 2007
Alicia F. Ricaforte, petitioner, vs. Leon L. Jurado, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Leon Jurado filed a complaint for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against petitioner Alicia Ricaforte. Jurado alleged that Ruby Aguilar, who procured rice from him, paid using two checks issued by Ricaforte. Upon presentment, the checks were dishonored. In her defense, Ricaforte claimed she merely accommodated Aguilar by lending her checks, with the agreement that Aguilar would replace them with her own checks once her new checkbook was issued. Aguilar corroborated this, stating she indeed issued two replacement checks to Jurado. Ricaforte demanded the return of her original checks, but Jurado refused, prompting her to issue a stop payment order. The Quezon City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint, finding the checks were issued without consideration as accommodation instruments and not for value, following the precedent in Magno v. Court of Appeals.
The Secretary of Justice, on appeal, modified the resolution and directed the filing of an information against Ricaforte for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The Secretary ruled that the gravamen of the offense is the mere issuance of a worthless check, and the law applies even to checks issued as a guarantee or deposit. The Court of Appeals upheld the Secretary’s finding, prompting Ricaforte to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to indict petitioner for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 based on the issuance of accommodation checks.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is an executive function, and courts will not interfere absent a clear showing of arbitrariness. On the substantive issue, the Court reiterated that B.P. Blg. 22 is a malum prohibitum offense. The gravamen of the offense is the act of making or issuing a check that is subsequently dishonored, not the purpose of its issuance or the presence of consideration.
The law explicitly applies to checks issued “to apply on account or for value.” The Court explained that an accommodation check, issued as a guarantee or security, is issued for value as it enables the accommodated party to obtain something of value. Here, Ricaforte’s checks enabled Aguilar to procure rice from Jurado. Therefore, the checks were issued for value within the contemplation of the law. The defense that the checks were merely accommodation instruments does not exempt the issuer from liability under B.P. Blg. 22. The existence of a separate arrangement or the issuance of replacement checks is a matter of defense best ventilated during a full trial on the merits, not a ground to negate probable cause at the preliminary investigation stage.