Republic of the Philippines
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI
Branch 66
Makati City Hall, J.P. Rizal St., Makati City
BEN QUE.,
Complainant,
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1100431
FOR: VIOLATION OF BP. 22
-versus-
HENRY CHAO.,
Accused.
MEMORANDUM
(For the Complainants)
COMES NOW THE COMPLAINANT, through the undersigned counsels,
unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submits and presents this
Memorandum:
Preliminary Statement
The case at bar is a blatant violation of the Bouncing Checks Law. Here,
the accused was specifically required the issuance of checks to facilitate and
ensure the payment of the obligation but when the complainant deposited the
said instruments they were dishonored by the bank for the reason Account
Closed. Violation of the Bouncing Checks Law is malum prohibitum. The law
was enacted to maintain faith in bank instruments for utilization in
commercial transactions. The reason of the law is its spirit. We have to apply
the spirit of the law.
PARTIES
1. Complainant BEN QUE (BEN), is of legal age, married and maybe
served with notices and other legal processes at 123 Tridalo St.,
Mandaluyong City.
2. Respondent HENRY CHAO (HENRY), is of legal age, and maybe
served with notices and other legal processes at 007 Malugay St., Malabon
City.
FACTS
That on June 1, 2011, the accused who is the manager of Atlas Parts
borrowed money in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) with
5% monthly interest payable in five (5) equal monthly installments of Twelve
Thousand Five Hundred (P12,500.00), the money will be used to pay for their
stocks evidenced by five (5) checks issued by the accused for that effect.
That the said check which represents the installment of payments
of the accused’s obligation was deposited in BOD Manila City Hall Branch but
the said checks were dishonored by the drawee, Alloy Bank because the said
account was already closed.
That the complainant personally went to the accuse to demand for
the payment thereof but was ignored and that he sent a demand letter thru
registered mail to the accused on January 2, 2012 in his office at Malugay
Street, Malabon City and that the accused received it because the registered
letter was not return to the complainant.
ISSUES
WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE UNDER BP 22 AS THE
MANAGER OF ATLAS PARTS
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGED “NEGOTIABLE ORDER OF WITHDRAWAL”
SLIPS ARE CONSIDERED NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT
DISCUSSION
WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED
IS LIABLE UNDER BP 22 AS THE
MANAGER OF ATLAS PARTS
The Bouncing Check Law Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, Section 1 provides:
Section 1. Checks without sufficient funds. - Any person who
makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for
value, knowing 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, which 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, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than
thirty (30) days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not
less than but not more than double the amount of the check which
fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or
both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes
or draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to
maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if
presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the date
appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the
drawee bank.
Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or
entity, the person or persons who actually signed the check in
behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.
The law clearly provides that where the check is drawn by a
corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who actually signed the
check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable. Mr. Chao, being the manager,
undersigned the said instrument in behalf of Atlas Parts.
In Gosiaco vs. Ching, the Supreme Court had the chance to emphasize the
distinct liability of the signatory of the check and the corporation:
“B.P. Blg. 22 imposes a distinct civil liability on the signatory of the
check which is distinct from the civil liability of the corporation
for the amount represented from the check. The civil liability
attaching to the signatory arises from the wrongful act of signing
the check despite the insufficiency of funds in the account, while
the civil liability attaching to the corporation is itself the very
obligation covered by the check or the consideration for its
execution.”1
Furthermore, Section 2 of BP 22 provides that the mere making,
drawing, and issuance of dishonored check shall constitute as prima facie
evidence to be held liable thereof:
Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. - The making,
drawing and issuance of a check, payment of which is refused by
the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such
bank when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the
check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such
insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays
the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes
arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check
within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check
has not been paid by the drawee.
The Court, in the case of Lozano vs. Hon. Martinez, explained the spirit
behind B.P. Blg. 22. It held that:
1 Gosiaco vs. Ching, G.R. No. 173807, April 16, 2009
“The gravemen 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. It is not the non-
payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The law is not
intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The
thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the
making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation.
Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the
practice is proscribed by law. The law punishes the act not as an
offense against property, but an offense against public order.”2
In this case, the reason of the dishonor is "Account Closed," and not just
insufficiency of funds. In short, there is actual proof of lack of credit with
drawee bank. The account is already closed and accused cannot even make a
deposit anymore.
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGED
“NEGOTIABLE ORDER OF
WITHDRAWAL” SLIPS ARE
CONSIDERED NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENT
Section 1 of the Negotiable Instruments Law provides for the required
form of negotiable instruments:
Form of negotiable instruments. - An instrument to be
negotiable must conform to the following requirements:
(a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer;
(b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum
certain in money;
(c) Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed or determinable
future time;
(d) Must be payable to order or to bearer; and
(e) Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be
named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty.
As shown by the evidence (Exhibits A-E), the NOW slips conform to the
required form of negotiable instrument as required by the abovementioned
provision.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that
judgment be rendered declaring Respondents guilty of the charges brought
against him and and likewise file appropriate Criminal charges.
OTHER RELIEFS as may be deemed just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.
2 Lozano vs. Hon. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323
Makati City, 6 October 2019.
Gumpal, Libetario, Tocalo Law Office
2nd Flr., Trinidad Bldg.
Yacapin St., cor. Corrales Ave.
Cagayan de Oro City 9000
By:
RAIMA GUMPAL
BUEN CASSANDRA LIBETARIO
SITTIE HEDAYA TOCALO
Counsel for the Complainant
Yacapin St., cor. Corrales Ave., Cagayan de Oro City
PTR 8638486A 12-27-17 CDO
IBP MIS. OR. 1080176 12-21-17 CDO
ROLL NO. 66879 05-23-17; 77980 05-23-18; 88091 05-23-18
TIN 473-819-489-000
