View full case

PACIFICO B. ARCEO v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Pacifico B. Arceo, Jr. borrowed P100,000.00 from Josefino Cenizal on March 14, 1991, and later obtained an additional loan of P50,000.00. To repay the loan, Arceo issued a postdated check for P150,000.00 in favor of Cenizal, to be encashed on August 4, 1991. Arceo repeatedly promised to replace the check with cash, causing Cenizal to delay depositing the check. When Cenizal finally brought the check to the bank, it was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Cenizal informed Arceo but discovered that Arceo had already left his place. Cenizal filed a complaint against Arceo for estafa and violation of BP 22. The check and the return slip were later lost in a fire. After trial, Arceo was found guilty of violating BP 22. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. Arceo appealed to the Supreme Court, raising various contentions.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the dishonored check was presented beyond the 90-day period as required by BP 22.

  2. Whether the notice requirement was complied with and whether the petitioner was given sufficient time to pay his obligation.

  3. Whether the petitioner had already paid his debt to the complainant.

RULING:

  1. The court held that the dishonored check was presented within the 90-day period required by BP 22. The check was issued on August 4, 1991, and it was presented to the drawee bank on December 5, 1991, which was within the 90-day period provided by law.

  2. The court ruled that the notice requirement was complied with and the petitioner was given sufficient time to pay his obligation. The complainant informed the petitioner of the dishonor of the check, and the petitioner was given three days to pay the amount. The court clarified that the five banking day requirement was applicable only if the notice was sent by mail. In this case, the notice was personally given to the petitioner.

  3. The court rejected the petitioner's assertion that he had already paid his debt to the complainant. The court found that there was no evidence to support the claim, and the petitioner failed to present any proof of payment.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Under BP 22, a person who issues a check without sufficient funds and knowing that it will be dishonored is liable for violation of the law.

  • The 90-day period for presentment of the check is counted from the date appearing on the check.

  • Notice requirement under BP 22 may be personally given and the debtor is required to pay within a reasonable period, which may be three days.