Betty King vs Pp
Short Description
BETTY KING VS PP...
Description
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT
Manila THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 131540 December 2, 1999 BETTY KNG, petitioner,
vs. PEOP!E O" T#E P#!PPNES, respondent.
P$NG$NB$N, J.:
nder !atas Pa"bansa !l#. $$ %!P $$&, the prosecution "ust prove not onl' that the accused issued a chec( that )as subse*uentl' dishonored. It "ust also established that the accused )as actuall' notified that the chec( )as dishonored, and that he or she failed, )ithin five ban(in# da's fro" receipt of the notice, to pa' the holder of the chec( the a"ount due thereon or to "a(e arran#e"ent for its pa'"ent. +bsent proof that the accused received such notice, a prosecution for violation of the !ouncin# hec( -a) cannot prosper. The Case !efore this ourt is a Petition for Revie) on Certiorari under under Rule / of the Rules of ourt assailin# the 0anuar' 12, 3445 Decision 1 of the ourt of +ppeals 2 %+& in +67R R No. 38$$9 and its Nove"ber /, 3445 Resolution 3 den'in# reconsideration. The + affir"ed affir"ed the 0une 3, 344 Decision 4 of the Re#ional Trial ourt %RT& of Ma(ati, Metro Manila 5 in ri"inal ase Nos. 416111/ to 41611/ )hich convicted petitioner of 33 counts of violation of !P $$, other)ise (no)n as the !ouncin# hec( -a). On +pril $8, 3441, Second +ssistant Provincial Prosecutor 0ai"e +. +doc filed a#ainst petitioner eleven separate Infor"ations, % )hich are identicall' )orded, e:cept for the chec( nu"ber, the a"ount and the date, as follo)s; That in or about the "onth of 0anuar', 344$ in the Municipalit' of -as PiI->>N ?>RN+ND>@ herein represented b' AAAAAAAA to appl' on account or for value the chec( described belo); >BIT+!-> !+NC hec( No. 2$3533 In the a"ount of P/2,222.22
Postdated 0ul' $, 344$ said accused )ell (no)in# that at the ti"e of issue shehe did not have sufficient funds in or credit )ith the dra)ee ban( for the pa'"ent in full of the face a"ount of such chec( upon their present"ent, )hich chec( )hen presented for pa'"ent )ithin ninet' %42& da's fro" the date thereof )ere subse*uentl' dishonored b' the dra)ee ban( for the reason E+ccount losedE and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor the accused failed to pa' the face a"ount thereof or "a(e arran#e"ent for the full pa'"ent thereof )ithin five %/& )or(in# da's after receivin# notice. & Fhen arrai#ned, petitioner, assisted b' counsel, p leaded not #uilt'. +fter the prosecution presented its evidence and rested its case, petitioner filed a De"urrer to >vidence )ithout leave of court, on the #round that the prosecution failed to prove her #uilt be'ond reasonable doubt. The trial court denied the De"urrer in its assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of )hich reads; FH>R>?OR>, pre"ises considered, the de"urrer to evidence )ithout prior leave of court is D>NI>D for lac( of "erit. Since accused has )aived her ri#ht to present evidence, =ud#"ent is hereb' rendered findin# accused #uilt' be'ond re asonable doubt of Violation of !atas Pa"bansa !ilan# $$ in the eleven %33& above6entitled cases and is ordered to; 3. Suffer i"prison"ent for thirt' %12& da's, to pa' a fine in the a"ount of P/2,222.22, and to pa' co"plainant >ileen ?ernandeG the a"ount of P/2,222.22 as actual da"a#es in ri"inal ase No. 416111/ $. Suffer i"prison"ent for thirt' %12& da's, to pa' a fine in the a"ount of P/2,222.22, and to pa' co"plainant >ileen ?ernandeG the a"ount of P/2,222.22 as actual da"a#es in ri"inal ase No. 4161119 1. Suffer i"prison"ent for thirt' %12& da's, to pa' a fine in the a"ount of P/2,222.22, and to pa' co"plainant >ileen ?ernandeG the a"ount of P/2,222.22 as actual da"a#es in ri"inal ase No. 4161115 . Suffer i"prison"ent for thirt' %12& da's, to pa' a fine in the a"ount of P9,$22.22, and to pa' co"plainant >ileen ?ernandeG the a"ount of P9,$22.22 as actual da"a#es in ri"inal ase No. 4161118 /. Suffer i"prison"ent for thirt' %12& da's, to pa' a fine in the a"ount of P99,222.22, and to pa' co"plainant >ileen ?ernandeG the a"ount of P99,222.22 as actual da"a#es in ri"inal ase No. 4161114 9. Suffer i"prison"ent for thirt' %12& da's, to pa' a fine in the a"ount of P322,222.22, and to pa' co"plainant >ileen ?ernandeG the a"ount of P322,222.22 as actual da"a#es in ri"inal ase No. 416112 5. Suffer i"prison"ent for thirt' %12& da's, to pa' a fine in the a"ount of P3/2,222.22, and to pa' co"plainant >ileen ?ernandeG the a"ount of P3/2,222.22 as actual da"a#es in ri"inal ase No. 416113
8. Suffer i"prison"ent for thirt' %12& da's, to pa' a fine in the a"ount of P3/2,222.22, and to pa' co"plainant >ileen ?ernandeG the a"ount of P3/2,222.22 as actual da"a#es in ri"inal ase No. 41611$ 4. Suffer i"prison"ent for thirt' %12& da's, to pa' a fine in the a"ount of P312,222.22, and to pa' co"plainant >ileen ?ernandeG the a"ount of P312,222.22 as actual da"a#es in ri"inal ase No. 416111 32. Suffer i"prison"ent for thirt' %12& da's, to pa' a fine in the a"ount of P312,222.22, and to pa' co"plainant >ileen ?ernandeG the a"ount of P312,222.22 as actual da"a#es in ri"inal ase No. 41611 and, 33. Suffer i"prison"ent for thirt' %12& da's, to pa' a fine in the a"ount of P312,222.22, and to pa' co"plainant >ileen ?ernandeG the a"ount of P312,222.22 as actual da"a#es in ri"inal ase No. 41611/. ' +s alread' stated, the ourt of +ppeals affir"ed the RT in this )ise;
9
FH>R>?OR>, the appealed decision is hereb' affir"ed [I]N TOTO. osts a#ainst appellant. Hence, this Petition.
10
The Facts Evidence for the Prosecution The Office of the Solicitor 7eneral 11 su""ariGed the facts, as vie)ed b' the prosecution, in this )ise; On several occasions in 0anuar', 344$, at -as Pi:h. M, returned chec( tic(et dated 0ul' $8, 344$, relative to hec( No. 2$35$5, 2$3533 and 2$35$2 li(e)ise indicatin# the said chec(s to have been dra)n a#ainst insufficient funds, Jour Honor. >:hibit N, returned chec( tic(et dated 0ul' $4, 344$, relative to hec( Nos. 2$354 and 2$358, havin# the sa"e indications >:hibits O, returned chec( tic(et dated 0ul' $4, 344$ relative to hec( Nos. 2$35/2 and 2$35/1, )ith the sa"e indications >:hibits P, returned chec( tic(et dated +u#ust , 344$ relative to hec( No. 2$35/$, havin# the sa"e indication as bein# dra)n a#ainst insufficient funds >:hibit B, the de"and letter sent to the accused b' +tt'. Horacio Ma(alintal dated +u#ust 1, 344$ >:hibit R, the letter6re*uest for certification addressed to the Post"aster 7eneral sent b' the sa"e la) office dated 35 Septe"ber 344$, sho)in# that the said letter )as dispatched properl' b' the entral Post Office of Ma(ati
>:hibit S, 3st Indorse"ent of the Ma(ati entral Post Office dated $3 Septe"ber 344$ >:hibit T, the Philippine Postal orporation entral Post Office letter dated $ Septe"ber 344$, addressed to this re presentation sho)in# that there )ere 1 notices sent to the herein accused )ho received the said letter. ORT; -ets #o to the third chec( slip an' ob=ection to the third slipK +TTJ. M+N7>R+; Fe have no ob=ection as to the due e:ecution and authenticit'. ORT; +d"itted. +TTJ. M+C+-INT+-; Fe are offerin# >:hibits B, R, S and T, for the purpose of sho)in# that there )as de"and dul' "ade on the accused and that the sa"e had been appropriatel' served b' the entral Post Office Services of Manila. +TTJ. M+N7>R+; Fe ad"it as to the due e:ecution and authenticit' onl' as to that portion, Jour Honor. ORT; Fe are tal(in# of ad"issibilit' no), so ad"itted. In other )ords, at this point, he "a(es an offer and the ourt )ill either #rant ad"ission, Lad"it it in evidence or den ' it. It can den' ad"ission if it is not properl' identified etcetera. +TTJ. M+N7>R+; I thin( it is alread' provided. ORT; So, ad"itted. +TTJ. M+C+-INT+-;
Fith the ad"ission of our offer, Jour Honor, the prosecution rests. 1% ?ro" the fore#oin#, it is clear that the prosecution evidence consisted of docu"ents offered and ad"itted durin# the trial. In vie) of this, the + correctl' ruled that Fule v . Court of Appeals 1& )ould not appl' to the present controvers'. In that case, a hearin# )as conducted durin# )hich the prosecution presented three e:hibits. Ho)ever, ?ules conviction )as Ebased solel' on the stipulation of facts "ade durin# rile pre6trial on +u#ust 8, 348/, )hich )as not si#ned b' the petitioner, nor b' his counsel.E !ecause the stipulation )as inad"issible in evidence under Section of Rule 338, the ourt held that there )as no proof of his #uilt. In the present case, petitioners conviction )as based on the evidence presented durin# trial, and not on the stipulations "ade durin# the pretrial. Hence, petitioners ad"issions durin# the trial are #overned not b' the Fulerulin# or b' Section of Rule 338, but b' Section of Rule 3$4 )hich reads; Sec. . 'udicial Adissions. +n ad"ission, verbal or )ritten, "ade b' a part' in the course of the proceedin#s in the sa"e case, does not re*uire proof. The ad"ission "a' be contradicted onl' b' sho)in# that it )as "ade throu#h palpable "ista(e or that no such ad"ission )as "ade. Hence, the trial court and the ourt of +ppeals did not err in ta(in# co#niGance of the said docu"entar' evidence. (econd Issue; (ufficienc" of Prosecution Evidence Petitioner ar#ues that the prosecution failed to prove be'ond reasonable doubt the ele"ents of the offense. +fter a careful consideration of the records of this case, )e believe and so rule that the totalit' of the evidence presented does not support petitioners conviction for violation of !P $$. Sec. 3 of !P $$ defines the offense as follo)s; Sec. 3. Chec)s %ithout sufficient funds. +n' person )ho "a(es or dra)s and issues an' chec( to appl' on account or for value, (no)in# at the ti"e of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit )ith the dra)ee ban( for the pa'"ent of such chec( in full upon its present"ent, )hich chec( is subse*uentl' dishonored b' the dra)ee ban( for insufficienc' of funds or credit or )ould have been dishonored for the sa"e reason had not the dra)er, )ithout an' valid reason, ordered the ban( to stop pa'"ent, shall be punished b' i"prison"ent of not less than thirt' da's but not "ore than one %3& 'ear or b' a fine of not less than but not "ore than double the a"ount of the chec( )hich fine sha ll in no case e:ceed T)o hundred thousand pesos, or both such fine and i"prison"ent at the discretion of the court. The sa"e penalt' shall be i"posed upon an' person )ho havin# sufficient funds in or credit )ith the dra)ee ban( )hen he "a(es or dra)s and issues a chec(, shall fail to (eep sufficient funds or to "aintain a credit to cover the full a"ount of the chec( if presented )ithin a period of ninet' %42& da's fro" the date appearin# thereon, for )hich reason it is dishonored b' the dra)ee ban(.
Fhere the chec( is dra)n b' a corporation, co"pan' or entit', the person or persons )ho actuall' si#ned the chec( in behalf of such dra)er shall be liable under this +ct. +ccordin#l', this ourt has held that the ele"ents of the cri"e are as follo)s;
1'
3. The accused "a(es, dra)s or issues an' chec( to appl' to account or for value. $. The chec(s subse*uentl' dishonored b' the dra)ee ban( for insufficienc' of funds or credit or it )ould have been dishonored for the sa"e reason had not the dra)er, )ithout an' valid reason, ordered the ban( to stop pa'"ent. 1. The accused (no)s at the ti"e of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit )ith, dra)ee ban( for the pa'"ent of the chec( in full u pon its present"ent. Fe shall anal'Ge the evidence, purportedl' establishin# each of the afore"entioned ele"ents )hich the trial and the appellate courts relied upon. Issuance of the *uestioned Chec)s ontendin# that the prosecution failed to prove the first ele"ent, petitioner "aintains that she "erel' si#ned the *uestioned chec(s )ithout indicatin# therein the date and the a"ount involved. She adds that the' )ere i"properl' filled up b' >ileen ?ernandeG. Thus, she concludes, she did not EissueE the dishonored chec(s in the conte:t of the Ne#otiable Instru"ents -a), )hich defines EissueE as the Efirst deliver' of the instru"ent co"plete in for" to a person )ho ta(es it as a holder.E 19 Petitioners contentions are not "eritorious. The *uestioned chec(s, "ar(ed as >:hibits E+E to EC,E contained the date of issue and the a"ount involved. In fact, petitioner even ad"itted that she si#ned those chec(s. On the other hand, no proof )as adduced to sho) that petitioner "erel' si#ned the" in blan(, or that co"plainant filled the" up in vio lation of the for"ers instructions or their previous a#ree"ent. The evidence on record is clear that petitioner issued eleven chec(s, all of )hich )ere dul' filled up and si#ned b' her. Chec)s Dishonored Neither are )e persuaded b' p etitioners ar#u"ent that Ethere appears no evidence on record that the sub=ect chec(s )ere unpaid and dishonored.E 20 nder Section 1 of !P $$, Ethe introduction in evidence of an' unpaid and dishonored chec(, havin# the dra)ees refusal to pa' sta"ped or )ritten thereon, or attached thereto, )ith the reason therefor as aforesaid, shall be pria facie evidence of the "a(in# or issuance of said chec(, and the due present"ent to the dra)ee for pa'"ent and the dishonor thereof, and that the sa"e )as properl' dishonored for the reason )ritten, sta"ped, or attached b' the dra)ee on such dishonored chec(.E In the present case, the fact that the chec(s )ere dishonored )as sufficientl' sho)n b' the chec(s the"selves, )hich )ere sta"ped )ith the )ords E+ONT -OS>D.E This )as further supported b' the returned chec( tic(ets issued b' PI !an(, the depositor' ban(, statin# that the chec(s had been dishonored.
learl', these docu"ents constitute pria facie evidence that the dra)ee ban( dishonored the chec(s. +#ain, no evidence )as presented to rebut the prosecutions clai". +no%ledge of Insufficienc" of Funds To hold a person liable under !P $$, it is not enou#h to establish that a chec( issued )as subse*uentl' dishonored. It "ust be sho)n further that the person )ho issued the chec( (ne) Eat the ti"e of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit )ith the dra)ee ban( for the pa'"ent of such chec( in full upon its present"ent.E !ecause this ele"ent involves a state of "ind )hich is difficult to establish, Section $ of the la) creates a pria facie presu"ption of such (no)led#e, as follo)s; 21 Sec. $. Evidence of )no%ledge of insufficient funds. The "a(in#, dra)in# and issuance of a chec( pa'"ent of )hich is refused b' the dra)ee because of insufficient funds in or credit )ith such ban(, )hen presented )ithin ninet' %42& da's fro" the date of the chec(, shall be pria facie evidence of (no)led#e of such insufficienc' of funds or credit unless such "a(er or dr a)er pa's the holder thereof the a"ount due thereon, or "a(es arran#e"ents for p a'"ent in full b' the dra)ee of such chec( )ithin five %/& ban(in# da's after receivin# notice that such chec( has not been paid b' the dra)ee. In other )ords, the pria facie presu"ption arises )hen a chec( is issued. !ut the la) also provides that the presu"ption does not arise )hen the issuer pa's the a"ount of the chec( or "a(es arran#e"ent for its pa'"ent E)ithin five ban(in# da's after receivin# notice that such chec( has not been paid b' the dra)ee.E Veril', !P $$ #ives the accused an opportunit' to satisf' the a"ount indicated in the chec( and thus avert prosecution. +s the ourt held in ,o-ano v . .artine- , the aforecited provision serves to E"iti#ate the harshness of the la) in its application.E 22 This opportunit', ho)ever, can be used onl' upon receipt b' the accused of a notice of dishonor. This point )as underscored b' the ourt in ,ina ,i ,ao v . Court of Appeals; 23 It has been observed that the State, under this statute, actuall' offers the violator a Eco"pro"ise b' allo)in# hi" to perfor" so"e act )hich operates to pree"pt the cri"inal action, and if he opts to perfor" it the action is abated.E This )as also co"pared Eto certain la)s allo)in# ille# al possessors of firear"s a certain period of ti"e to surrender the ille#all' p ossessed firear"s to the 7overn"ent, )ithout incurrin# an' cri"inal liabilit'.E In this li#ht, the full pa'"ent of the a"ount appearin# in the chec( )ithin five ban(in# da's fro" notice of dishonor is a Eco"plete defense.E The absence of a notice of dishonor necessaril' deprives an accused an opportunit' to preclude a cri"inal prosecution. +ccordin#l', procedural due process clearl' en=oins that a notice of dishonor be actuall' served on petitioner. Petitioner has a ri#ht to de"and and the basic postulates of fairness re*uire that the notice of dishonor be actuall' sent to and received b' her to afford her the opportunit' to avert prosecution under !P $$. Thus, in order to create the pria facie presu"ption that the issuer (ne) of the insufficienc' of funds, it "ust be sho)n that he or she received a notice of dishonor and, )ithin five ban(in# d a's thereafter, failed to satisf' the a"ount of the chec( or "a(e arran#e"ent for its pa'"ent. To prove that petitioner (ne) of the insufficienc' of her funds, the prosecution presented >:hibits EBE to ET.E !ased on these docu"ents, the ourt of +ppeals concluded that ELprivate co"plainant sent a de"and letter to appellant to "a(e #ood said chec(s . . .. +ppellant failed to pa' the face value of
the eleven chec(s or "a(e arran#e"ent for the full pa'"ent thereof )ithin 42 da's after receivin# the notice.E 24 pon closer e:a"ination of these docu"ents, )e find no evidentiar' basis for the holdin# of the trial court and the ourt of +ppeals that petitioner received a notice that the chec(s had been dishonored. True, co"plainant sent petitioner a re#istered "ail, as sho)n in >:hibit EBE infor"in# the latter that the chec(s had been dishonored. !ut the records sho) that petitioner did not receive it. In fact, Post"aster Filfredo libarris letter addressed to co"plainants counsel certified that the Esub=ect re#istered "ail )as returned to sender on Septe"ber $$, 344$ . . .. E 25 Not)ithstandin# the clear i"port of the post"asters certification, the prosecution failed to adduce an' other proof that petitioner received the post office notice but un=ustifiabl' refused to clai" the re#istered "ail. It is possible that the dra)ee ban( sent petitioner a notice of dishonor, but the prosecution did not present evidence that the ban( did send it, or that petitioner actuall' received it. It )as also possible that she )as tr'in# to flee fro" co"plainant b' sta'in# in different address. Speculations and possibilities, ho)ever, cannot ta(e the place of proof. onviction "ust rest on proof be'ond reasonable doubt. learl', the evidence on hand de"onstrates the indelible fact that petitioner did not receive notice that the chec(s had been dishonored. Necessaril', the presu"ption that she (ne) of the insufficienc' of funds cannot arise. !e that as it "a', the ourt "ust point out that it cannot rule on petitioners civil liabilit', for the issue )as not raised in the pleadin#s sub"itted before us. Fe "ust stress that !P $$, li(e all penal statutes, is construed strictl' a#ainst the State and liberall' in favor of the accused. 2% -i(e)ise, the prosecution has the burden to prove be'ond reasonable doubt each ele"ent of the cri"e. Hence, the prosecutions case "ust rise or fall on the stren#th of its o)n evidence, never on the )ea(ness or even absence of that of the defense. FH>R>?OR>, the assailed Decision of the ourt of +ppeals is hereb' R>V>RS>D and S>T +SID>. Petitioner !ett' Cin# is +BITT>D for failure of the prosecution to prove all the ele"ents of the cri"es char#ed. No pronounce"ent as to costs. SO ORD>R>D. .elo/ 0itug/ Purisia and 1on-aga2Re"es/ ''3/ concur3 "oo()o(e*
3 Rollo, pp. /$691. $ Si:th Division. 1 Rollo, p. 99. Rollo, pp. 4644 penned b' 0ud#e Santia#o Ranada 0r. / !ranch 315. 9 Records, pp. $369$.
5 Rollo, pp. 3263$. 8 RT Decision, pp. /69 rolo, pp. 48644. 4 + Decision, p. 3$ rollo, p. 91. 32 This case )as dee"ed sub"itted for resolution on March 34, 3444, upon receipt b' the ourt of the respondents Me"orandu". 33 Throu#h Solicitor 7eneral Ricardo P. 7alveG, +ssistant Solicitor 7eneral Rodolfo 7. rbiGtondo and Solicitor Procolo M. Olaivar. 3$ Respondents o""ent, pp. 36$ rollo, pp. 3463/2. 31 Sec. 3/, Rule 334 of the Rules of ourt. 3 Petitioners Me"orandu", pp. 4632 rollo, pp. 3456348 si#ned b' +tt's. 0anette !assi# hua and +l*uin !. Man#uera. 3/ Sec. . Pre2trial agreeents ust !e signed . No a#ree"ent or ad"ission "ade or entered durin# the pre6trial conference shall be used in evidence a#ainst the accused unless reduced to )ritin# and si#ned b' hi" and his counsel. 39 TSN, Septe"ber 35, 3441 pp. 16/ rollo, pp. 8$68. 35 39$ SR+ 9, 0une $$, 3488. 38 People v. -a##ui, 353 SR+ 12/, March 39, 3484. 34 Petitioners Me"orandu", p. 1$ rollo, p. $$2. $2 Petitioners Me"orandu", p. 1/ rollo, p. $$1. $3 (ee also risolo#o60ose v. ourt of +ppeals, 355 SR+ /4, Septe"ber 3/, 3484 Travel6On, Inc. v. ourt of +ppeals, $32 SR+ 1/3, 0une $9, 344$ and People v. Sin#son, $3/ SR+ /1, Nove"ber 3$, 344$. $$ 39 SR+ 1$, Dece"ber 38, 3489, per Jap, 0. $1 $5 SR+ /5$, /4, 0une $2, 3445, per Pan#aniban, 0. itations o"itted. $ + Decision, p. 33 rollo, p. 9$. $/ >:hibit ET,E Records, p. $2. $9 +#palo, Statutor' onstruction %3442& p. $28 Nitafan, Notes and o""ents on the !ouncin# hec(s -a), p. $3.
View more...
Comments
