Lawyerly

GR No. 159823

2013-02-18

BERSAMIN, J.

To properly appreciate if there is a prejudicial question to warrant the suspension of the criminal actions, reference is made to the elements of the crimes charged. The violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 requires the concurrence of the following elements, namely: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; 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, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.[21] The issue in the criminal actions upon the violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is, therefore, whether or not Reyes issued the dishonoured checks knowing them to be without funds upon presentment. On the other hand, the issue in the civil action for rescission is whether or not the breach in the fulfilment of Advanced Foundation's obligation warranted the rescission of the conditional sale. If, after trial on the merits in the civil action, Advanced Foundation would be found to have committed material breach as to warrant the rescission of the contract, such result would not necessarily mean that Reyes would be absolved of the criminal responsibility for issuing the dishonored checks because, as the aforementioned elements show, he already committed the violations upon the dishonor of the checks that he had issued at a time when the conditional sale was still fully binding upon the parties. His obligation to fund the checks or to make arrangements for them with the drawee bank should not be tied up to the future event of extinguishment of the obligation under the contract of sale through rescission. Indeed, under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the mere issuance of a worthless check was already the offense in itself. Under such circumstances, the criminal proceedings for the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 could proceed despite the pendency of the civil action for rescission of the conditional sale.

GR No. 160127

2008-11-11

RAFAEL P. LUNARIA v. PEOPLE

PUNO, C.J.

At the outset, the first and second grounds raised by petitioner are essentially factual in nature, impugning the finding of guilt by both the CA and the RTC. Petitioner would have this court re-evaluate and re-assess the facts, when it is beyond cavil that in an appeal by certiorari, the jurisdiction of this Court is confined to reviews of errors of law ascribed to the CA. This Court is not a trier of facts, and the findings of fact by the CA are conclusive, more so when it concurs with the factual findings of the RTC. Absent any showing that such findings are devoid of any substantiation on record, the finding of guilt is conclusive on us.[14]

GR No. 160127

2008-11-11

RAFAEL P. LUNARIA v. PEOPLE

PUNO, C.J.

Since 1998, [21] this Court has held that it would best serve the ends of criminal justice if, in fixing the penalty to be imposed for violation of B.P. 22, the same philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law be observed, i.e., that of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order.[22] This policy was embodied in Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000,[23]> authorizing the non-imposition of the penalty of imprisonment in B.P. 22 cases. We also clarified in Administrative Circular No. 13-2001, as explained in Tan v. Mendez,[24] that we are not decriminalizing B.P. 22 violations, nor have we removed imprisonment as an alternative penalty. Needless to say, the determination of whether the circumstances warrant the imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the judge. Should the judge decide that imprisonment is the more appropriate penalty, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 ought not to be deemed a hindrance.

GR No. 167461

2008-02-19

VICKY MOSTER v. PEOPLE

QUISUMBING, J.

B.P. Blg. 22 punishes as malum prohibitum the mere issuance of a worthless check, provided the other elements of the offense are proved. Section 1[14] enumerates the elements of B.P. Blg. 22, as follows: (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 does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; 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, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.[15]

GR NO. 166980

2007-04-03

CARMELO C. BERNARDO v. PEOPLE

CARPIO MORALES, J.

A word on the modified penalty imposed by the RTC. Contrary to its reasoning, the penalty of imprisonment in cases of violation of B.P. 22 was not deleted. As clarified by Administrative Circular 13-2001, the clear tenor and intention of Administrative Circular 12-2000 is not to remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to lay down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in B.P. 22.[30]

GR NO. 142641

2006-07-17

PACIFICO B. ARCEO v. PEOPLE

CORONA, J.

The gravamen of the offense is the act of drawing and issuing a worthless check.[6] Hence, the subject of the inquiry is the fact of issuance or execution of the check, not its content.

GR NO. 156169

2005-08-12

VICTOR ONGSON v. PEOPLE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Then too, the gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check, that is, a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum. So also, it is not the nonpayment of the obligation that is being punished, but the making of worthless checks.[40] What the law punishes is such issuance of a bum check and not the purpose for which the check was issued nor the terms or conditions relating to its issuance.[41] Thus, even if there had been payment through compensation or some other means, there could still be prosecution for violation of B.P. 22.[42]

GR NO. 142762

2005-03-04

LILANY YULO Y BILLONES v. PEOPLE

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

The elements of the offense penalized by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 are: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficient funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.[10]

GR No. 150763

2004-07-02

RURAL BANK OF MAKATI v. MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI

QUISUMBING, J.

Petitioners contend that MMC Ordinance No. 82-03 and Municipal Ordinance No. 122 are void for lack of publication. This again raises a factual issue, which this Court may not look into. As repeatedly held, this Court is not a trier of facts.[26] Besides, both the Court of Appeals and the trial court found lack of sufficient evidence on this point to support petitioners' claim, thus: And finally the matter of the lack of publication is once again alleged by the plaintiffs-appellants, claiming that the matter was skirted by the trial court. This argument must fail, in the light of the trial court's squarely finding lack of evidence to support the allegation of the plaintiffs-appellants. We quote from the trial court's decision: The contention that MMC Ordinance No. 82-03 and Municipal Ordinance No. 122 of Makati are void as they were not publishced (sic) is untenable. The mere allegation of the plaintiff is not sufficient to declare said ordinances void. The plaintiffs failed to adduce clear, convincing and competent evidence to prove said Ordinances void. Moreover, in this jurisdiction, an ordinance is presumed to be valid unless declared otherwise by a Court in an appropriate proceeding where the validity of the ordinance is directly put in issue.[27] On the issue of the closure of the bank, we find that the bank was not engaged in any illegal or immoral activities to warrant its outright closure. The appropriate remedies to enforce payment of delinquent taxes or fees are provided for in Section 62 of the Local Tax Code, to wit: SEC. 62. Civil Remedies. The civil remedies available to enforce payment of delinquent taxes shall be by distraint of personal property, and by legal action. Either of these remedies or both simultaneously may be pursued at the discretion of the proper authority.

GR No. 147372

2004-05-27

CAEZAR Z. LANUZA v. MA. CONSUELO MUÑOZ

QUISUMBING, J.

In this petition now before us, only questions of law may be reviewed.[20] Resolving this case on the merits, as prayed by respondent, would involve a determination of factual issues which, we hasten to add, are not within the province of this Court. At the risk of being tedious, we must stress that this Court is not a trier of facts. We are confined to the review of errors of law ascribed to the Court of Appeals, whose findings of fact are conclusive, absent any showing that such findings are entirely devoid of any substantiation on record.[21] The remand of the detainer case for further proceedings by the municipal trial court is clearly in order.

	GR No. 159823 2013-02-18	TEODORO A. REYES v. ETTORE ROSSI BERSAMIN, J.
To properly appreciate if there is a prejudicial question to warrant the suspension of the criminal actions, reference is made to the elements of the crimes charged. The violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 requires the concurrence of the following elements, namely: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; 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, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.[21] The issue in the criminal actions upon the violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is, therefore, whether or not Reyes issued the dishonoured checks knowing them to be without funds upon presentment. On the other hand, the issue in the civil action for rescission is whether or not the breach in the fulfilment of Advanced Foundation's obligation warranted the rescission of the conditional sale. If, after trial on the merits in the civil action, Advanced Foundation would be found to have committed material breach as to warrant the rescission of the contract, such result would not necessarily mean that Reyes would be absolved of the criminal responsibility for issuing the dishonored checks because, as the aforementioned elements show, he already committed the violations upon the dishonor of the checks that he had issued at a time when the conditional sale was still fully binding upon the parties. His obligation to fund the checks or to make arrangements for them with the drawee bank should not be tied up to the future event of extinguishment of the obligation under the contract of sale through rescission. Indeed, under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the mere issuance of a worthless check was already the offense in itself. Under such circumstances, the criminal proceedings for the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 could proceed despite the pendency of the civil action for rescission of the conditional sale.
	GR No. 160127 2008-11-11	RAFAEL P. LUNARIA v. PEOPLE PUNO, C.J.
At the outset, the first and second grounds raised by petitioner are essentially factual in nature, impugning the finding of guilt by both the CA and the RTC. Petitioner would have this court re-evaluate and re-assess the facts, when it is beyond cavil that in an appeal by certiorari, the jurisdiction of this Court is confined to reviews of errors of law ascribed to the CA. This Court is not a trier of facts, and the findings of fact by the CA are conclusive, more so when it concurs with the factual findings of the RTC. Absent any showing that such findings are devoid of any substantiation on record, the finding of guilt is conclusive on us.[14]
	GR No. 160127 2008-11-11	RAFAEL P. LUNARIA v. PEOPLE PUNO, C.J.
Since 1998, [21] this Court has held that it would best serve the ends of criminal justice if, in fixing the penalty to be imposed for violation of B.P. 22, the same philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law be observed, i.e., that of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order.[22] This policy was embodied in Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000,[23]> authorizing the non-imposition of the penalty of imprisonment in B.P. 22 cases. We also clarified in Administrative Circular No. 13-2001, as explained in Tan v. Mendez,[24] that we are not decriminalizing B.P. 22 violations, nor have we removed imprisonment as an alternative penalty. Needless to say, the determination of whether the circumstances warrant the imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the judge. Should the judge decide that imprisonment is the more appropriate penalty, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 ought not to be deemed a hindrance.
	GR No. 167461 2008-02-19	VICKY MOSTER v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
B.P. Blg. 22 punishes as malum prohibitum the mere issuance of a worthless check, provided the other elements of the offense are proved. Section 1[14] enumerates the elements of B.P. Blg. 22, as follows: (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 does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; 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, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.[15]
	GR NO. 166980 2007-04-03	CARMELO C. BERNARDO v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
A word on the modified penalty imposed by the RTC. Contrary to its reasoning, the penalty of imprisonment in cases of violation of B.P. 22 was not deleted. As clarified by Administrative Circular 13-2001, the clear tenor and intention of Administrative Circular 12-2000 is not to remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to lay down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in B.P. 22.[30]
	GR NO. 142641 2006-07-17	PACIFICO B. ARCEO v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
The gravamen of the offense is the act of drawing and issuing a worthless check.[6] Hence, the subject of the inquiry is the fact of issuance or execution of the check, not its content.
	GR NO. 156169 2005-08-12	VICTOR ONGSON v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Then too, the gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check, that is, a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum. So also, it is not the nonpayment of the obligation that is being punished, but the making of worthless checks.[40] What the law punishes is such issuance of a bum check and not the purpose for which the check was issued nor the terms or conditions relating to its issuance.[41] Thus, even if there had been payment through compensation or some other means, there could still be prosecution for violation of B.P. 22.[42]
	GR NO. 142762 2005-03-04	LILANY YULO Y BILLONES v. PEOPLE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The elements of the offense penalized by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 are: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficient funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.[10]
	GR No. 150763 2004-07-02	RURAL BANK OF MAKATI v. MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioners contend that MMC Ordinance No. 82-03 and Municipal Ordinance No. 122 are void for lack of publication. This again raises a factual issue, which this Court may not look into. As repeatedly held, this Court is not a trier of facts.[26] Besides, both the Court of Appeals and the trial court found lack of sufficient evidence on this point to support petitioners' claim, thus: And finally the matter of the lack of publication is once again alleged by the plaintiffs-appellants, claiming that the matter was skirted by the trial court. This argument must fail, in the light of the trial court's squarely finding lack of evidence to support the allegation of the plaintiffs-appellants. We quote from the trial court's decision: The contention that MMC Ordinance No. 82-03 and Municipal Ordinance No. 122 of Makati are void as they were not publishced (sic) is untenable. The mere allegation of the plaintiff is not sufficient to declare said ordinances void. The plaintiffs failed to adduce clear, convincing and competent evidence to prove said Ordinances void. Moreover, in this jurisdiction, an ordinance is presumed to be valid unless declared otherwise by a Court in an appropriate proceeding where the validity of the ordinance is directly put in issue.[27] On the issue of the closure of the bank, we find that the bank was not engaged in any illegal or immoral activities to warrant its outright closure. The appropriate remedies to enforce payment of delinquent taxes or fees are provided for in Section 62 of the Local Tax Code, to wit: SEC. 62. Civil Remedies. The civil remedies available to enforce payment of delinquent taxes shall be by distraint of personal property, and by legal action. Either of these remedies or both simultaneously may be pursued at the discretion of the proper authority.
	GR No. 147372 2004-05-27	CAEZAR Z. LANUZA v. MA. CONSUELO MUÑOZ QUISUMBING, J.
In this petition now before us, only questions of law may be reviewed.[20] Resolving this case on the merits, as prayed by respondent, would involve a determination of factual issues which, we hasten to add, are not within the province of this Court. At the risk of being tedious, we must stress that this Court is not a trier of facts. We are confined to the review of errors of law ascribed to the Court of Appeals, whose findings of fact are conclusive, absent any showing that such findings are entirely devoid of any substantiation on record.[21] The remand of the detainer case for further proceedings by the municipal trial court is clearly in order.

STEVE TAN v. FABIAN MENDEZ