Facts:
Oriel Magno sought to open a car repair shop in April 1983 but lacked the funds for necessary equipment. Magno, representing Ultra Sources International Corporation, approached Corazon Teng, Vice President of Mancor, a distributor of car repair service equipment. Due to Magno’s financial constraints, Teng suggested financing through LS Finance and Management Corporation. The agreement required a warranty deposit of 30% of the equipment’s value, amounting to P29,790.00. Unable to produce the deposit, Magno received an advance from Teng, which was arranged personally by Joey Gomez, Vice President of LS Finance, at 3% interest.
Magno and LS Finance entered a leasing agreement with an option to purchase the equipment. Magno issued a postdated check for the deposit to Gomez, who, unbeknownst to Magno, handed it to Teng. When the check was about to mature, Magno, who had closed his account with Pacific Bank, requested that the check not be deposited and issued six new postdated checks; only two were cleared while the other four were temporarily held by Teng upon Magno’s request due to insufficient funds.
LS Finance later retrieved the equipment due to Magno’s failure to pay the monthly rentals. It was then that Magno discovered Teng as the source of the deposit. Despite a promise to pay, the remaining checks were returned for an “account closed” reason when deposited.
Magno was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22), known as the Bouncing Checks Law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, leading to this petition for review by certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
1) Whether the issuance of the postdated checks constituted violations of B.P. 22, considering the nature and purpose of the “warranty deposit.”
2) Whether the petitioner should be held liable for the value of the warranty deposit despite not personally utilizing the deposit for his business.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, acquitting Magno of the charges. The Court reasoned that the “warranty deposit” was not used by Magno, as the leasing agreement did not ripen into a purchase. Instead, it remained a lease with rentals being paid for loaned equipment. Charging Magno for the refund of the “warranty deposit” was unjust, as the funds had been with the financing company and were not used for his personal gain.
Doctrine:
1) The Supreme Court clarified the application of B.P. Blg. 22, emphasizing that its purpose is to protect the banking system and legitimate checking account users, not to cover private financial arrangements that do not involve an actual receipt of an account or credit for value.
2) The principle elucidated is that the issuance of a check must be for an obligation “to apply on account or for value” as prescribed by B.P. Blg. 22.
Class Notes:
1) Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 – The law penalizes the making or drawing and the issuance of a check without sufficient funds or credit and any person who commits this act shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than thirty days but not more than one year OR by a fine not less than the amount of the check but not more than double the amount or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
2) Mala Prohibita vs. Mala In Se – B.P. Blg. 22 operates on the principle of mala prohibita, where the mere commission of the prohibited act is punishable, regardless of the presence or absence of criminal intent.
3) Application of Criminal Law Theories – The Supreme Court applied the “protective theory” and “moral disapprobation” theory in criminal law to guide its decision-making, demonstrating the need to interpret laws with a view to protecting society’s interests.
Historical Background:
B.P. Blg. 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, was enacted to discourage the issuance of checks without sufficient funds and to maintain the credibility and reliability of checks as a mode of payment. This case arose during a time when the practice of issuing checks without cover was prevalent, thus undermining trust in financial transactions. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case leans towards a fair interpretation of the B.P. Blg. 22 in that it disfavors the weaponization of the statute for purposes divergent from its legislated intent.
Leave a Reply