GR 160328; (February, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160328 ; February 04, 2005
Teresita Alcantara Vergara, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Teresita Alcantara Vergara, as Vice President and General Manager of Perpetual Garments Corporation (PERPETUAL), signed a postdated check for P150,000.00 payable to Livelihood Corporation (LIVECOR) as part of a credit line agreement. The check, dated December 15, 1988, was dishonored upon presentment for insufficiency of funds. LIVECOR verbally informed petitioner of the dishonor in December 1988. An information for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) was filed against petitioner on April 1, 1991. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner, imposing a fine but finding no civil liability. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner should be convicted of violation of BP 22 despite evidence of subsequent payments covering the value of the dishonored check made prior to the filing of the information.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the appellate court’s decision and ACQUITTED petitioner. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that the prosecution must prove all elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt. While the elements of making, issuing, and dishonor of a check for insufficiency of funds were present, the Court found a failure of justice in proceeding with the criminal prosecution under the specific circumstances. Crucially, the records showed that from the time of dishonor in December 1988 up to the filing of the information in April 1991, PERPETUAL, through petitioner, had made payments to LIVECOR totaling P542,000.00. This amount far exceeded the face value of the single dishonored check (P150,000.00). The Court, citing its ruling in King v. People, emphasized that BP 22 was designed to prevent the proliferation of worthless checks and not to penalize individuals who have subsequently made good the value of the check. Where the payee has already received more than sufficient payment covering the check’s value years before the criminal charge was instituted, holding the drawer criminally liable would no longer serve the law’s purpose and would subvert the ends of justice. The criminalization under such conditions becomes untenable. Thus, petitioner’s conviction was set aside.