GR 182210; (October, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182210, October 05, 2015
PAZ T. BERNARDO, SUBSTITUTED BY HEIRS, MAPALAD G. BERNARDO, EMILIE B. KO, MARILOU B. VALDEZ, EDWIN T. BERNARDO AND GERVY B. SANTOS, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Paz T. Bernardo obtained a loan of P460,000.00 from private complainant Carmencita C. Bumanglag in June 1991, payable on November 30, 1991, and evidenced by a promissory note. As security, Bernardo gave Bumanglag the owner’s duplicate copy of a Transfer Certificate of Title. Prior to the loan’s maturity, Bernardo retrieved the title to use as collateral for another transaction and, in its place, issued five Far East Bank and Trust Company checks dated in June 1992, covering the total loan amount. In September 1992, Bumanglag deposited the checks, but they were dishonored due to “Account Closed.” Bumanglag sent a notice of dishonor, which Bernardo allegedly ignored, leading to the filing of five counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22). During trial, Bernardo claimed she had already paid the loan in cash, that the checks were presented beyond the 90-day period, and that she did not receive a notice of dishonor. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Bernardo guilty, sentencing her to imprisonment and ordering her to indemnify Bumanglag. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but deleted the imprisonment, imposing a fine instead and retaining the civil indemnity. Bernardo died during the pendency of her appeal to the Supreme Court, and her heirs were substituted for purposes of her civil liability.
ISSUE
1. Whether Bernardo was denied due process in the presentation of her defense.
2. Whether the prosecution proved all elements of violation of B.P. 22, particularly knowledge of insufficiency of funds.
3. Whether the civil liability survives Bernardo’s death.
RULING
1. No, Bernardo was not denied due process. The RTC gave her ample opportunity to present her defense, but she and her counsel moved for postponement multiple times and failed to appear on scheduled hearings despite notice, leading the RTC to rightly consider her right to present additional evidence waived.
2. Yes, all elements of B.P. 22 were proven. The checks were issued to apply on account or for value; they were dishonored due to “Account Closed”; and Bernardo had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds, as evidenced by the notice of dishonor sent to her and her failure to make arrangements for payment within five banking days. The 90-day period for presentment is not an element of the crime but merely a condition for the prima facie presumption of knowledge of lack of funds. Bernardo’s claim of payment was unsubstantiated.
3. Yes, the civil liability based on contract survives Bernardo’s death. While the death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability and civil liability arising from the delict, the civil liability based on contract (the loan obligation) is independent and survives. This civil liability may be enforced against her estate in the same criminal action, as B.P. 22 cases are deemed to include the corresponding civil action. The petition was denied for lack of merit.