View full case

ISIDRO PABLITO M. PALANA v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Petitioner Isidro Pablito Palana was charged with violation of B.P. Blg. 22, otherwise known as the "Bouncing Checks Law." The charge stemmed from an incident in September 1987, where Palana issued a postdated check in the amount of P590,000.00 to private complainant Alex B. Carlos. When the check was presented for payment, it was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Despite demand, Palana failed to make good on the dishonored check.

Palana claimed that the amount given to him by Carlos was an investment and not a loan. He argued that the check was not issued as a guarantee for the payment of a loan since his checking account was opened only in December 1987. He alleged that Carlos tricked him into issuing the check to secure his investment in their partnership, which was experiencing business reversals.

The Regional Trial Court found Palana guilty of the offense and sentenced him to six months of imprisonment and to indemnify Carlos in the amount of P590,000.00 plus legal interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Palana appealed the decision, arguing that the Regional Trial Court did not have jurisdiction over the case and that the check was not issued for consideration or value.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Regional Trial Court properly acquired jurisdiction over the case.

  2. Whether the subsequent amendment of B.P. 129 by R.A. No. 7691 divests the Regional Trial Court of jurisdiction over the case.

  3. Whether the elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 were proven by the prosecution.

  4. Whether the amount of the check represents a loan or an investment.

  5. Whether or not the purpose for which the checks were issued is relevant in determining the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

  6. Whether or not the alleged inconsistency in the date of issuance of the subject check is material in the prosecution for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

  7. Whether or not the private complainant knew that the check is not funded.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the Regional Trial Court properly acquired jurisdiction over the case. The crime of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is punishable by a fine not exceeding P200,000.00. Since the imposable fine in the present case is P200,000.00, the Regional Trial Court, which has jurisdiction over criminal cases where the imposable fine exceeds twenty thousand pesos, acquired jurisdiction over the case. The Metropolitan Trial Court, on the other hand, could not acquire jurisdiction over the case because its jurisdiction is only for offenses punishable with a fine of not more than P4,000.00.

  2. No, the subsequent amendment of B.P. 129 by R.A. No. 7691 does not divest the Regional Trial Court of jurisdiction over the case. Once a court has obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to the final determination of the cause is not affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal, unless the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect, that it is intended to operate on actions pending before its enactment. R.A. No. 7691 contains retroactive provisions, but it only applies to civil cases that have not yet reached the pre-trial stage. It does not have retroactive application to criminal cases pending or decided by the Regional Trial Courts prior to its effectivity. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over the case attached from the commencement of the action by the filing of the Information and could not be ousted by the passage of R.A. No. 7691.

  3. Yes, the elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 were proven by the prosecution. The elements are: (1) the accused makes, draws, or issues any check to apply on account or for value; (2) the accused knows at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment. In this case, all elements were duly proven by the prosecution.

  4. The amount of the check represents a loan and not an investment. The trial court and the Court of Appeals upheld the claim of the private complainant that the check was issued as a guaranty for the loan, rejecting the petitioner's "investment theory." The issue of whether the amount represents a loan or an investment is a factual question involving the credibility of witnesses. The Court will not disturb the findings of the lower court on credibility unless there is a compelling reason to do so. In this case, there is no reason to reverse the finding that the amount of the check was a loan.

  5. The purpose for which the checks were issued is irrelevant in determining the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The law punishes the issuance of a rubber check itself and not the purpose or terms and conditions of its issuance. The checks, regardless of their intended use, have the same effect as ordinary checks. The distinction as to the kind of checks is not supported by the law. What is important is the fact that the petitioner deliberately issued the checks in question, which were later dishonored upon presentment for payment.

  6. The alleged inconsistency in the date of issuance of the subject check is immaterial. Issuance, as defined under the Negotiable Instruments Law, refers to the first delivery of the check. While the information alleged a postdated check, evidence during the trial revealed that the check was issued prior to the alleged date. Although the time of issuance is material in a prosecution for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the variance between the allegation and proof does not prejudice the accused as he was aware of the insufficient funds at the time of check issuance.

  7. There is no merit in the petitioner's claim that the private complainant knew that the check was not funded. The Court found that the check was issued as a guarantee for payment of a loan and intended to apply for account or value. It was the petitioner's responsibility to ensure that the check was duly covered when presented for payment.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Jurisdiction acquired by a court over a case is not affected by new legislation unless the statute expressly provides or is construed to have retroactive effect on actions pending before its enactment.

  • The elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 are: (1) issuance of a check; (2) knowledge of insufficiency of funds at the time of issuance; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank.

  • The presumption is that a check was issued for valuable consideration, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

  • The defense of showing the check to potential suppliers is not valid in a violation of B.P. Blg. 22 case, as the offense is malum prohibitum and criminal intent is not necessary to establish guilt.

  • The purpose or terms and conditions for which checks are issued are irrelevant in a prosecution for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The law punishes the issuance of a rubber check itself, regardless of its intended use.

  • Variance between the allegation in the information and proof adduced during trial is fatal if it is material and prejudicial to the accused. However, if the accused is not prejudiced and not surprised by the variance, it does not affect their substantial rights.

  • The person who issues a check as a guarantee for payment of a loan or in exchange for value is responsible for ensuring that the check is properly funded when presented for payment.