G.R. No. 75954 October 22, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. DAVID G. NITAFAN, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Manila, and K.T. LIM alias MARIANO LIM, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent K.T. Lim was charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Check Law) for issuing Philippine Trust Company Check No. 117383 dated February 9, 1985, in the amount of P143,000.00 to Fatima Cortez Sasaki. The Information alleged that at the time of issue, he did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank, the check was subsequently dishonored for insufficiency of funds, and despite notice of dishonor, he failed to pay or make arrangements for full payment within five banking days. Private respondent moved to quash the Information on the grounds that B.P. 22 was unconstitutional and that the check he issued was a memorandum check, which he argued was in the nature of a promissory note and thus civil in nature. Respondent Judge, ruling that B.P. 22 was unconstitutional, issued an Order quashing the Information. The Solicitor General, on behalf of the government, filed this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether a memorandum check issued postdated in partial payment of a pre-existing obligation is within the coverage of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the Order of respondent Judge, and directed the trial court to proceed with the hearing of the case. The Court held that a memorandum check falls within the ambit of B.P. 22. A memorandum check is in the form of an ordinary check, with the word “memorandum,” “memo,” or “mem” written across its face, signifying that the drawer engages to pay the bona fide holder absolutely without any condition concerning its presentment. It is drawn on a bank and is therefore distinguished from a promissory note, which is a mere promise to pay. The law does not distinguish but punishes any person who makes or draws and issues any check knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds. The legislative intent was comprehensive, aiming to include all checks drawn against banks. The law punishes the issuance itself of a bouncing check, and the purpose for which it was issued is immaterial. The understanding that a memorandum check is not to be presented at the bank but will be redeemed by the maker is a private arrangement that cannot exempt it from the penal sanction of B.P. 22, as such an exemption would frustrate the law’s purpose of stemming the proliferation of unfunded checks.