GR 217787; (September, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 217787 , September 18, 2019
Socorro F. Ongkingco and Marie Paz B. Ongkingco, Petitioners, vs. Kazuhiro Sugiyama and People of the Philippines, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Socorro F. Ongkingco (President and Chairperson) and Marie Paz B. Ongkingco (Board Director) of New Rhia Car Services, Inc. were charged with four counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22). The charges stemmed from four checks issued to respondent Kazuhiro Sugiyama that were dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds. Three checks (each for P90,675.00, dated December 10, 2001, January 10, 2002, and February 10, 2002) were issued under a Contract Agreement where Sugiyama invested P2,200,000.00 in the corporation in exchange for monthly dividends. A fourth check (for P525,000.00, dated November 30, 2001) was issued under a Memorandum of Agreement to cover a personal loan obtained by Socorro from Sugiyama. After the checks were dishonored, a formal demand letter was sent on March 5, 2002, but no payment was made. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) found petitioners guilty, imposed fines, and ordered them to jointly and severally pay Sugiyama the total face value of the checks (P797,025.00) with 12% interest per annum from the filing of the complaint. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the MeTC decision in toto.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the petitioners’ conviction for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision. The Court held that all elements of violation of B.P. 22 were proven beyond reasonable doubt:
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/she does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment.
3. The subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or the dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.
The Court found that the checks were issued for valuable consideration (investment dividends and a loan). The prosecution proved presentment and dishonor through the checks themselves stamped “Drawn Against Insufficient Funds.” Knowledge of insufficiency of funds was presumed from the dishonor and proven by the receipt of the demand letter, as evidenced by the testimony of the process server and the acknowledgment on the letter. Petitioners’ defense of lack of consideration and that they signed as corporate officers was rejected. Under B.P. 22, persons who actually sign a corporate check are personally liable. The civil liability for the face value of the checks was properly imposed. However, in line with recent jurisprudence, the interest rate on the civil liability was MODIFIED to 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment until full payment.