FACTS:

In the first case, Sonia Ruiz borrowed money from Norberta Mendoza and issued a check drawn against a closed account in payment of her debt. Mendoza filed a complaint against Ruiz for violation of B.P. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) found Ruiz guilty and ordered her to pay a fine and the face value of the check. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the decision.

In the second case, the petitioner argues that criminal liability for violation of B.P. 22 only applies if the maker of the check is a depositor of the drawee bank or has a checking account there. She claims that since she issued the check against an account owned by someone else, she cannot order the drawee bank to pay the amount to the payee. The petitioner also argues that she issued the check as an accommodation to someone else and that the person promised not to present the check for payment or deposit. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asserts that the petitioner's proper remedy was to file a petition for review in the Court of Appeals and supports the decisions of the MTC and RTC.

In the third case, Sheila Parro was charged with violation of B.P. 22 for issuing a check without sufficient funds. The private complainant alleged that Parro issued the check as payment for an account belonging to her sister and claimed ignorance of Parro's lack of an account with UCPB. Parro argues that both parties' conflicting testimonies should be examined and requests the dismissal of the petition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioner is criminally liable for violation of B.P. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) even if she is not the owner of the account against which the subject check was drawn.

2. Whether the ownership of the check is material in determining liability for Violation of B.P. 22.

3. Whether the petitioner is liable for violation of B.P. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law).

4. Whether the petitioner can be considered an accommodation party.

5. Whether the petitioner is an accommodation party.

6. Whether the purpose for which the check was issued is relevant to the prosecution and conviction of the petitioner for violation of B.P. 22.

7. Whether the defense interposed by the petitioner was an afterthought.

8. Whether the petitioner informed the private complainant that her sister was the owner of the account on which the check was drawn.

RULING:

1. The petitioner is criminally liable for violation of B.P. 22 even if she is not the owner of the account against which the subject check was drawn. The law applies to any person who makes or draws and issues any check, knowing that they do not have sufficient funds in the account for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment. The ownership of the check is not material in determining liability for Violation of B.P. 22.

2. The ownership of the check is not material in determining liability for Violation of B.P. 22. The purpose of the law is to discourage the issuance of bouncing checks and restore respectability to checks, regardless of the purpose of the check issuance.

3. The petitioner is liable for violation of B.P. 22. The elements of the offense have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner made, drew, or issued a check without sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank. The petitioner also knew at the time of issuance that there were insufficient funds to cover the check. Furthermore, the check was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds. The fact that the drawee bank had stopped the payment upon the petitioner's order without any valid reason does not exempt the petitioner from liability.

4. The petitioner cannot be considered an accommodation party. The evidence shows that the petitioner drew and signed the check with the knowledge and consent of her sister, who owned the account against which the check was drawn. The check was also given legal effect since it was approved and sanctioned by the account owner. The petitioner failed to prove that she drew the check merely as an accommodation party, and there is no indication on the face of the check to support such claim.

5. The petitioner is not an accommodation party under both the legal test and the proceeds test.

6. The purpose for which the check was issued is irrelevant to the prosecution and conviction of the petitioner for violation of B.P. 22.

7. The defense interposed by the petitioner was considered an afterthought by the court.

8. The petitioner did not inform the private complainant that her sister was the owner of the account on which the check was drawn.

PRINCIPLES:

• The main purpose of B.P. 22 is to discourage the issuance of bouncing checks and restore respectability to checks.

• B.P. 22 covers any check that bounces, regardless of whether it belongs to the accused or another person.

• The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment.

• The ownership of the check is not material in determining liability for Violation of B.P. 22.

• The gravamen of the offense of violation of B.P. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless or dishonored check. The law includes all checks drawn against banks and aims to eliminate the practice of issuing checks with insufficient or no credit or funds.

• The issuance of a worthless or dishonored check has effects beyond the private interests of the parties involved and can harm the public interest and welfare. It is considered a public nuisance and a crime against public order.

• A person who draws and issues a check on an account belonging to another, with the latter's consent, that has been closed or has insufficient funds or credit, can also be penalized under B.P. 22.

• Whether a person is an accommodation party is determined by their intent, which is ascertained based on the surrounding facts and circumstances, using the purpose test and the proceeds test.

• The evaluation of testimonies of witnesses by the trial court is binding upon the appellate court, absent a clear showing of arbitrariness or a clear overlooking of substantial facts. The trial court has the best opportunity to observe the demeanor, conduct, and attitude of the witnesses.

• The mere act of issuing a worthless check, whether as an accommodation or otherwise, is covered by B.P. 22. The law punishes the issuance of a bouncing check itself and not the purpose for which it was issued or the terms and conditions relating to its issuance.