G.R. No. 191404 ; July 5, 2010
Eumelia R. Mitra, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines and Felicisimo S. Tarcelo, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eumelia R. Mitra was the Treasurer of Lucky Nine Credit Corporation (LNCC). Between 1996 and 1999, private respondent Felicisimo Tarcelo invested money with LNCC. In accordance with standard practice, LNCC issued checks to Tarcelo representing his investments plus interest. Mitra, along with the corporation’s President, signed these checks. When Tarcelo presented the checks for payment, they were dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason “account closed.” Despite oral demands for payment, the amounts remained unpaid.
Consequently, seven Informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) were filed against Mitra and her co-accused. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) found them guilty, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA). Mitra elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing primarily that the elements of BP 22 were not proven against her personally and that there was no proper service of the notice of dishonor.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Eumelia R. Mitra is criminally liable for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

RULING

Yes, the petitioner is criminally liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. The offense under BP 22 is malum prohibitum; the law punishes the mere act of issuing a bouncing check as an offense against public order. The elements of the violation are: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply on account or for value; (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.
All elements were established beyond reasonable doubt. Mitra, as a signatory, issued the corporate checks. The checks were dishonored upon presentment because the account was closed, which is equivalent to having insufficient funds. The Court rejected Mitra’s defense that she signed the checks in blank, noting that as a corporate officer, she had a responsibility to ensure the checks were properly funded. Furthermore, the requirement of notice of dishonor was satisfied. The law only requires that the notice be sent to the drawer’s address, and it is not necessary to prove that the drawer actually received it. Mitra’s failure to pay the value of the check or make arrangements for its payment within five banking days after receiving notice completed her liability. Her criminal liability is personal and not merely derivative from the corporation’s obligation.