G.R. No. 193279; March 14, 2012
ELEANOR DE LEON LLENADO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and EDITHA VILLAFLORES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eleanor Llenado was convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) for violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22). She issued a check for ₱1,500,000 to secure a loan from private respondent Editha Villaflores. The check was dishonored upon presentment for insufficiency of funds. The MeTC found all elements of the violation present, noting petitioner’s admission of knowledge of the dishonor and that a demand letter with notice of dishonor was received at her residence by one Alfredo Abierra. The MeTC sentenced her to pay the check amount, a ₱200,000 fine, and attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the conviction on appeal.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the civil aspect. It ruled that all elements of B.P. 22 were established, rejecting petitioner’s claim that receipt of the notice of dishonor was not proven. However, the CA correctly reversed the MeTC’s imposition of civil liability against the Children of Mary Immaculate College, holding only petitioner liable. It ordered petitioner to indemnify Villaflores ₱1,500,000 with 12% legal interest from judicial demand, plus a fine and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for violation of B.P. 22.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction with modification on the interest computation. The Court held that the petition raised a question of fact—the receipt of the notice of dishonor—which is not permissible in a Rule 45 petition limited to questions of law. The factual findings of the MeTC, RTC, and CA, which unanimously found all elements of B.P. 22 present, are binding. Petitioner failed to provide any cogent reason to overturn these findings or to qualify the case as an exception to the rule.
However, the Court modified the CA’s imposition of interest in conformity with prevailing jurisprudence. Following Ongson v. People, the legal interest of 12% per annum on the civil indemnity of ₱1,500,000 should be computed from the date of extrajudicial demand, proven to be May 14, 1999 (the date Abierra received the demand letter), and not merely from judicial demand. Thus, interest runs from May 14, 1999, until the finality of the Decision. The total amount due shall further earn 12% interest per annum from finality until fully paid. The penalty of a ₱200,000 fine with subsidiary imprisonment, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses were sustained.