Nego Digest Lunaria vs People.pdf

RAFAEL P. LUNARIA, Lunaria vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

refused to sign. At this point, Artaiz filed the instant case.

The Facts

The Issues

Lunar, a cashier of Far East Bank, entered into a partnership agreement with complainant Artaiz

I. WON CA correct in not reversing the RTC decision convicting Lunaria for violation of B.P. Bilang 22;

The lending business progressed satisfactorily and sufficient trust was established that they both agreed to issue pre-signed checks to each other, for their mutual convenience. The checks were signed but had no payee's name, date or amount, and each was given the authority to fill these blanks based on each other's advice. One of the checks issued by Lunaria was dishonored for insufficient funds. When Artaiz went to Lunaria to ask why the latter's check had bounced, Lunaria told Artaiz that he had been implicated in a murder case and therefore could not raise the money to fund the check. Lunaria requested Artaiz not to deposit the other checks that would become due as he still had a case. Lunaria was charged with murder but was eventually acquitted in December 1990. According to Artaiz, he went to Lunaria in May 1990, after he was released on bail, and demanded payment for the money owed Artaiz. Lunaria again requested more time to prepare the money and collect on the loans. Artaiz agreed. In June 1990, Lunaria allegedly went to Artaiz's residence where both had an accounting. It was supposedly agreed that Lunaria owed Artaiz P844k and Lunaria issued a check in that amount, post-dated to December 1990. When the check became due and demandable, Artaiz deposited it. The check was dishonored as the account had been closed. A demand letter was subsequently sent to Lunaria, informing him of the dishonor of his check, and to the obligation. Artaiz also went to Lunaria's house to get a settlement.and the latter proposed that his house and lot be given as security. But after Artaiz's lawyer had prepared the document, Lunaria

The RTC found Lunaria guilty On appeal, the CA affirmed.

II. WON that the prosecution failed to establish the elements of the crime of the violation of B.P. Bilang 22: The Ruling The SC found that, the elements of the crime have been established by the prosecution, i.e., (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds for the payment of the check; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, ordered the bank to stop payment. Under the first element, Lunaria wants Us to believe that he did not draw and issue the check for a consideration because under the NIL the subject check "was not complete in form at the time it was given to Artaiz." However, it should be borne in mind that the exchange of the pre-signed checks without date and amount between the parties had been their practice for almost a year cos of their moneylending business. They had authority to fill up blanks upon information that a check can then be issued. Thus, under the Negotiable Instruments Law, Section 14 of which reads: "Blanks, when may be filled. - Where the instrument is wanting in any material particular, the person in possession thereof has prima facie

authority to complete it by filling up the blanks therein. xxx" Having failed to prove lack of authority, it can be presumed that Artaiz was within his rights to fill up blanks on the check. Under the second element, Lunaria states that the making and issuing of the check was devoid of consideration. However, it should be noted that when lack of consideration is claimed, it pertains to total lack of consideration. In this case, records show that Lunaria recognized that there was an amount due to Artaiz, such that he had his own version of computation with respect to the amount he owed to Artaiz. It bears repeating that the lack of criminal intent on the part of the accused is irrelevant. The law has made the mere act of issuing a worthless check a malum prohibitum, an act proscribed by legislature for being deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare.