View full case

EUMELIA R. MITRA v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Eumelia R. Mitra, the petitioner in this case, held the position of treasurer in Lucky Nine Credit Corporation (LNCC), while Florencio L. Cabrera Jr. was the corporation's president. LNCC was involved in money lending activities. Private respondent Felicisimo S. Tarcelo invested money in LNCC between 1996 and 1999, and as part of the money placement transactions, LNCC issued checks to Tarcelo. However, when Tarcelo presented these checks for payment, they bounced due to "account closed." Despite Tarcelo's multiple oral demands for payment, LNCC failed to settle the checks. Consequently, Tarcelo filed seven charges against Mitra and Cabrera for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), also known as the "Bouncing Checks Law." The municipal trial court found Mitra and Cabrera guilty and ordered them to pay fines and the outstanding amount owed to Tarcelo. Dissatisfied with the decision, Mitra and Cabrera appealed the ruling to the regional trial court but were denied. Mitra then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which also dismissed her petition. Currently, Mitra has brought her case before the Supreme Court, raising issues specifically concerning the elements of BP 22 and the proper service of notice of dishonor and demand for payment.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the elements of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 must be proved beyond reasonable doubt as against the corporation who owns the current account where the subject checks were drawn before liability attaches to the signatories.

  2. Whether or not there is proper service of notice of dishonor and demand to pay to the petitioner and the late Florencio Cabrera, Jr.

RULING:

  1. The Court denies the petition.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A check is a negotiable instrument that serves as a substitute for money and as a convenient form of payment in financial transactions and obligations.

  • The use of checks as payment allows commercial and banking transactions to proceed without the actual handling of money, thus, doing away with the need to physically count bills and coins whenever payment is made.

  • BP 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law was enacted for the specific purpose of addressing the problem of the continued issuance and circulation of unfunded checks by irresponsible persons.

  • To stem the harm caused by bouncing checks to the community, BP 22 considers the mere act of issuing an unfunded check as an offense not only against property but also against public order.

  • The purpose of BP 22 in declaring the mere issuance of a bouncing check as malum prohibitum is to punish the offender, deter him and others from committing the offense, isolate him from society, reform and rehabilitate him, and maintain social order.

  • BP 22 imposes the penalty of imprisonment for at least 30 days or a fine of up to double the amount of the check, whichever is higher, in addition to the imposition of civil liability.