View full case

BETTY KING v. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES

FACTS:

The petitioner, in the first set of charges, issued postdated checks to Eileen Fernandez amounting to P1,070,000.00 in exchange for cash. When the checks were deposited, they were dishonored by the Equitable Bank due to 'Account Closed.' The prosecution argues that the petitioner knew she did not have sufficient funds when she issued the checks. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and filed a Demurrer to Evidence, which was denied by the trial court. She was found guilty and the decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

In the second set of charges, the petitioner issued several checks amounting to P1,000,000.00, but they were dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficient funds. Despite demands for payment, the petitioner failed to make good on the checks. The prosecution presented documentary evidence, which the petitioner admitted as genuine and executed. The petitioner filed a Demurrer to Evidence without leave of court, effectively waiving her right to present evidence. The trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the prosecution, stating that all elements of the crime were proven. The petitioner raised issues regarding the admissibility of the prosecution's documentary evidence, her failure to sign the pretrial agreement, and the burden of evidence. The case primarily revolves around the admissibility and sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the evidence presented during the trial was admissible.

  2. Whether or not the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the offense.

  3. Whether the petitioner issued the dishonored checks in accordance with the definition under the Negotiable Instruments Law.

  4. Whether there is sufficient evidence that the subject checks were unpaid and dishonored.

  5. Whether the petitioner received a notice that the checks had been dishonored.

  6. Whether the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the crimes charged.

RULING:

  1. The evidence presented during the trial was admissible. The Supreme Court held that the documentary evidence offered and admitted during the trial were admissible. The court also stated that the petitioner's admissions during the trial were governed by Section 4 of Rule 129, which provides that an admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings does not require proof and may only be contradicted by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. Therefore, the trial court and the Court of Appeals did not err in taking cognizance of the documentary evidence.

  2. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the offense. The Supreme Court ruled that the totality of the evidence presented did not support the petitioner's conviction for violation of BP 22. The court cited Section 1 of BP 22, which defines the offense, and stated that the elements of the crime are (1) the accused makes, draws or issues any check to apply to account or for value, and (2) the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit. Since the prosecution failed to prove these elements beyond reasonable doubt, the petitioner's conviction was overturned.

  3. The court held that the petitioner issued the dishonored checks. The questioned checks contained the date of issue and the amount involved, and the petitioner admitted to signing those checks. Furthermore, there was no proof that the petitioner merely signed the checks in blank or that they were filled up improperly by someone else.

  4. The court held that there is sufficient evidence that the subject checks were unpaid and dishonored. The checks themselves were stamped with the words "ACCOUNT CLOSED," and the returned check tickets issued by the depository bank also stated that the checks were dishonored.

  5. The petitioner did not receive a notice that the checks had been dishonored. The prosecution failed to provide evidence that the petitioner received a post office notice or any other proof of dishonor.

  6. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the crimes charged. The evidence on hand shows that the petitioner did not receive a notice of dishonor, and therefore, the presumption that she knew of the insufficiency of funds cannot arise. The Court emphasized the need for the prosecution to prove each element of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Admissions made during the trial do not require proof and may only be contradicted by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. (Section 4 of Rule 129)

  • In a prosecution for violation of BP 22, the elements of the offense are (1) the accused makes, draws or issues any check to apply to account or for value, and (2) the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit.

  • The definition of "issue" under the Negotiable Instruments Law refers to the first delivery of the instrument complete in form to a person who takes it as a holder.

  • The introduction in evidence of any unpaid and dishonored check, stamped or written with the drawee's refusal to pay, shall be prima facie evidence of the making or issuance of the check, its presentment to the drawee for payment, and its dishonor.

  • To hold a person liable under BP 22, it must be shown that the person who issued the check knew at the time of the issuance that they did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment.

  • BP 22 creates a prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds, but this presumption does not arise if the issuer pays the amount of the check or makes arrangements for its payment within five banking days after receiving notice of dishonor.

  • Procedural due process requires that a notice of dishonor be actually served on the issuer to afford them the opportunity to avert prosecution under BP 22.

  • Penal statutes, including BP 22, must be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.

  • The prosecution has the burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt each element of the crime.

  • Speculations and possibilities cannot take the place of proof. Conviction must rest on evidence beyond reasonable doubt.