G.R. No. 167461 ; February 19, 2008
VICKY MOSTER, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Vicky Moster obtained a loan from complainant Adriana Presas and issued three postdated PhilBank checks as payment. Two of these checks, Check Nos. 026138 and 026124, were presented for payment but were dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason “Account Closed.” The third check, Check No. 026137, was never presented for encashment. After the dishonor, Presas made a demand for payment, which Moster failed to heed. Consequently, three Informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) were filed against Moster.
The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) acquitted Moster for the check that was not presented (Check No. 026137) but convicted her on two counts for the checks that were dishonored. The court ordered her to pay fines and to indemnify Presas the total value of all three checks, P367,602. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the civil liability, reducing it to P273,345, representing only the total value of the two dishonored checks.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed petitioner’s conviction for two counts of violating B.P. 22 and properly modified her civil liability.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals’ decision is affirmed. For a conviction under B.P. 22, the elements are: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or it would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. The prosecution successfully established these elements for the two checks that were presented and dishonored. The bank manager’s testimony and the certification proved the checks were drawn against a closed account, constituting prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds.
Regarding civil liability, the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s modification. The civil liability arising from the crime is limited to the actual damage caused by the offense. Since the petitioner was acquitted for the third check due to lack of presentment (a necessary element of the crime), no civil liability arising from that particular offense attaches. Therefore, the indemnity is correctly limited to the total face value of the two dishonored checks (P188,514.00 + P84,831.00 = P273,345.00). The separate civil action for the loan represented by the third check may be pursued in a proper forum.