LAURA REYES, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
INGLES, G. T., J.:
This is a petition for review filed by petitioner Laura Reyes of the Decision[1] dated June 28, 2011, of the Regional Trial Court, Sixth Judicial Region, Branch 35, Iloilo City in Crim Case No.11-69840 which affirmed the Decision[2] dated November 5, 2010 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Sixth Judicial Region, Branch 1, Iloilo City, in Crim Case No. 4500 finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of BP Blg. 22.
The Facts
Prosecution’s Version
Private complainant Chiu Han Sing Cembrano and petitioner Laura Reyes have known each other for twenty years. In the past, they have been engaged in many business transactions.
Sometime in April, 2003, petitioner together with a certain Botsoy Garganera went to the residence of Mr. Cembrano located at Ledesma Street, Iloilo City in order to exchange petitioner’s International Exchange Bank Check No. 139604 dated May 2, 2003, with a face value of P300,000.00 for cash.
Because of petitioner’s insistent pleas and the fact that Mr. Cembrano already knew her for a long time, the latter gave petitioner P300,000.00 cash. In exchange, petitioner signed the check in Mr. Cembrano’s presence and gave it to him.
The said check was deposited by Mr. Cembrano with drawee bank Rizal Commercial Bank Corporation (RCBC). However, said check was returned with the remark stamped dishonored for the reason “DAIF” or Drawn Against Insufficient Funds.
Mr. Cembrano made oral demands from petitioner to pay the amount of the check. When the check remained unpaid despite verbal demands, Mr. Cembrano sent a formal demand letter dated September 15, 2004 to petitioner which was received by the latter. Despite repeated demands, petitioner failed to settle her obligation.
The Charge
In the Information[3] filed against her, petitioner was charged with the crime of Violation of BP 22 as follows:
“That on or about the month of April, 2003, in the City of Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above named accused Laura Reyes, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and criminally make out and issue and draw in favor of Chin Han Sing Cembrano to apply on account or for value the check described below:
said accused well knowing that at the time of issue thereof, he/she had no sufficient funds in or credit with said bank for payment of in full of the face amount of the check upon the presentment, which check when presented for payment was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for reason “Drawn Against Insufficient Fund” and despite notice of such dishonor, the accused failed to pay said payee the face amount of said check or to make arrangement for full payment within five (5) banking days after receiving notice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Subsequently, petitioner was arraigned and pleaded “not guilty” to the crime charged.
Petitioner’s Version
Petitioner denied going to the house of Mr. Cembrano with Botsoy Garganera sometime in April, 2003. Petitioner claimed that around that time, Mr. Cembrano went to her store and demanded that a check be issued to him. Petitioner was not aware how her check came to be in the possession of Mr. Cembrano which was later dishonored.
According to petitioner, it came to her knowledge that she allegedly issued a check in favor of Mr. Cembrano only after a demand letter dated September 15, 2004 was sent to her by the latter. She was made to believe that said check was the one she issued to guaranty the loan of Botsoy Garganera.
Petitioner discovered that the International Exchange Bank Check No. 139604 did not bear her correct signature and was thus forged. She refused to pay the face value of the amount of the check, insisting that the signature therein is not hers.
Trial ensued. The prosecution presented Chiu Han Sing Cembrano as witness. On the other hand, only petitioner testified in her defense.
THE MTCC Ruling
On November 5, 2010, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Sixth Judicial Region, Branch 1, Iloilo City, rendered a Decision,[4] convicting petitioner of the crime of BP 22, the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, the court finds accused Laura Reyes GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 and hereby sentences her to pay the fine of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) with subsidiary imprisonment of SIX (6) MONTHS in case she fails to pay the same. The Court likewise sentences her to pay the private complainant Chiu Han Sing Cembrano the face value of the International Exchange Check No. 139604 in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) and the filing fees in the amount of P2,861.30.
SO ORDERED.”
Dismayed, petitioner filed an appeal with the Regional Trial Court, Seventh Judicial Region, Branch 35, Iloilo City.
The RTC Ruling
On June 28, 2011, the RTC, Branch 35, Iloilo City rendered a Decision,[5] denying petitioner’s appeal and affirming the MTCC Decision, the pertinent portion of which is as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
“We agree with the disquisition made by the trial court. Its findings were duly supported by testimonial and documentary evidence and absent any clear error, the same is binding upon this court. It has made specific recital of facts to support its conclusion that accused-appellant issued the check. It also agrees with the trial court when it said that the accused-appellant should have presented her other checks which were dishonored to resolve whether her signature appearing in the check is indeed a forgery. The accused-appellant failed to refute the private complainant’s positive and categorical testimony that the subject check was signed by her before him. Moreover, if indeed her signature was forged, accused-appellant could have filed a criminal case for falsification against the private complainant when she received the demand letter from him.The accused-appellant maintains that the specimen signature and that in her counter-affidavit are glaringly different from the signature appearing in subject check that there is even no need to present or call on an expert witness to testify on these conspicuous difference to support her claim of forgery.
We are not persuaded.
As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed, it must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence. Mere allegation of forgery is not evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging it. Here, the accused-appellant did not even present the evidence required by the trial court. We find that the evidence offered by the accused-appellant failed to discharge their burden.WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the Decision of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch !, Iloilo City dated November 5, 2010 in Criminal Case No. 4500 is affirmed in toto.
SO ORDERED.”
Aggrieved, petitioner now comes to this Court seeking a reversal of her conviction and assigning the following errors:
I.“THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT CONVICTING THE PETITIONER IN THE MIDST OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SIGNATURE FOUND ON THE INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK NO. 139604 DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ACCUSED; and
II.
THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT AN EXPERT WITNESS IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER A SIGNATURE IS A FORGERY.”
THIS COURT’S RULING:
I.
Forgery
Petitioner admits that there is no dispute that International Exchange Bank Check No. 139604 was issued and subsequently dishonored. However, petitioner asserts that the signature embodied on the subject check is not hers and is therefore a forgery. Petitioner submitted several specimens of her genuine signature, ie. the signatures found in her counter-affidavit taken from the trial court’s Notice of Hearing which she signed after every hearing, and the signature appearing in the verification of her Motion for Reconsideration. According to petitioner, the differences of the signature affixed on the subject check compared to her specimen signatures are very apparent even to the naked eye. She submits then that there is no need to call an expert witness to testify as to the conspicuous difference in signatures. Petitioner further adds that as between complainant’s testimony that he is familiar with her signature, and petitioner’s exhibits showing that the signature on the subject check was not her genuine signature, the former’s claim should be upheld.
Petitioner concedes that there is no need for an expert witness to determine if indeed the signature on the subject check is genuine for the reason that the variances in the signature appearing on the check compared to her specimen signatures are unmistakeable and clear. Accordingly, petitioner asserts that she is entitled to acquittal because she did not issue the subject check in the first place.
Petitioner’s argument is bereft of merit.
Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL) provides:
“Sec. 23. FORGED SIGNATURE, EFFECT OF. — When a signature is forged or made without authority of the person whose signature it purports to be, it is wholly inoperative, and no right to retain the instrument, or to give a discharge therefor, or to enforce payment thereof against any party thereto, can be acquired through or under such signature unless the party against whom it is sought to enforce such right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority.
A forged signature, whether it be that of the drawer or the payee, is wholly inoperative and no one can gain title to the instrument through it. A person whose signature to an instrument was forged was never a party and never consented to the contract which allegedly gave rise to such instrument.”
Under this provision, a forged signature is a real or absolute defense, and a person whose signature on a negotiable instrument is forged is deemed to have never become a party thereto and to have never consented to the contract that allegedly gave rise to it. [6]
Too, in Associated Bank vs Court of Appeals,[7] the Supreme Court declared that: “A forged signature, whether it be that of the drawer or the payee, is wholly inoperative and no one can gain title to the instrument through it. A person whose signature to an instrument was forged was never a party and never consented to the contract which allegedly gave rise to such instrument.”
It bears stressing, however, that forgery is not presumed. Forgery must be proved with clear and convincing evidence.[8] Whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same.[9] Thus, in the case at bar, we are tasked to determine if there is indeed forgery in the first place.
Under the Rules of Court, the genuineness of a handwriting may be proved by the following: (1) A witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument; (2) A witness familiar with such handwriting and who can give his opinion thereon, such opinion being an exception to the opinion rule; (3) A comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting and admitted genuine specimen thereof; and (4) Expert evidence.
Petitioner submitted the following: her signature on her counter-affidavit and the signature on the check alleged to have been forged. It is to be noted that she failed to submit specimen signatures of hers embodied in checks which she issued with banks not limited to the International Exchange Bank.
It should be remembered, however, that even with the findings rendered by experts, courts are not bound to give probative value or evidentiary value to the opinions of handwriting experts, as resort to handwriting experts is not mandatory.[10] Besides, the law makes no preference, much less distinction among and between the different means stated above in proving the handwriting of a person.
To determine forgery, it was held in Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. Nos. 54719-50, 17 January 1985 (quoting Osborn, The Problem of Proof) that:“The process of identification, therefore, must include the determination of the extent, kind, and significance of this resemblance as well as of the variation. It then becomes necessary to determine whether the variation is due to the operation of a different personality, or is only the expected and inevitable variation found in the genuine writing of the same writer. It is also necessary to decide whether the resemblance is the result of a more or less skillful imitation, or is the habitual and characteristic resemblance which naturally appears in a genuine writing. When these two questions are correctly answered the whole problem of identification is solved.”
After comparing the questioned signature on the subject check with the other signatures of petitioner affixed on other documents, we affirm the independent assessment of the MTCC and RTC that there is no forgery in the instant case. Indeed, the best evidence of a forged signature in an instrument is the instrument itself showing the alleged forgery. The fact of forgery can be established by comparing the allegedly false signature with the authentic or genuine one.[11] This was exactly what we did.
We found that the basis presented by the petitioner was inadequate to sustain her allegation of forgery. Petitioner insists that the signature appearing on the subject check is not hers. This is the crux of her defense of the crime charged. The trial court gave petitioner the opportunity to submit additional evidence to support her claim but she opted not to present more documents bearing her signatures. She could have presented other checks bearing her specimen signatures which she previously issued whether it be drawn against the International Exchange Bank or any other bank. This, she omitted to do.
Too, We are guided by Domingo vs Domingo, GR No. 150897, April 11, 2005, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that mere variance of signatures is not considered conclusive proof that the same is forged, thus:
“The passage of time and a person’s increase in age may have decisive influence in his handwriting characteristics. Thus, in order to bring about an accurate comparison and analysis, the standards of comparison must be as close as possible in point of time to the suspected signature. As correctly found by the appellate court, the examination conducted by the PC-INP Crime Laboratory did not conform to the foregoing standard. Recall that in the case, the signatures analyzed by the police experts were on documents executed several years apart. A signature affixed in 1958 or in 1962 may involve characteristics different from those borne by a signature affixed in 1970.”
We agree with the findings of the MTCC and the RTC that here is no significant variance in the signature appearing on the subject check and the specimen signatures submitted by petitioner warranting the conclusion that the signature on the subject check is not genuine. We adopt the court’s assessment that there was nothing unusual or irregular with the said signatures that would lead to the conclusion that petitioner’s signature was forged in the subject check.
It now appears that petitioner’s defense is mere denial that the signature appearing on the subject check is hers and that she did not issue said check which was later dishonored. Denial is self-serving and has little weight in law. A bare denial is an inherently weak defense, [12] and has been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor, for it can be easily concocted but difficult to prove. It must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability in order to be credible which is incidentally absent in the instant case. More importantly, it was established by the private complainant’s testimony that petitioner signed the subject check in her presence at the former’s residence which fact was not even rebutted on appeal.
II.
Elements of BP 22
established by the prosecution
Specifically, BP 22 provides:
“ 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 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.
SECTION 2. 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.”
In order to be liable for violation of BP Blg. 22, the following elements must therefor be present:
- a person makes or draws and issues a check to apply on account or for value;
- the person who makes or draws and issues the check knows at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the full payment of the check upon its presentment; and
- 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. [13]
The prosecution sufficiently established the presence of all three elements.
First of all, International Exchange Bank Check No. 139604 dated May 2, 2003 with a face value of P 300,000.00 was issued for value in exchange for the P 300,000.00 cash given to her by Mr. Cembrano. Whether or not said check was issued to guaranty the obligation of Botsoy Garganera is immaterial. In Ong v. People, G.R. No. 139006, 27 November 2000, the Supreme Court held that what the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check, not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum, provided the other elements of the offense are properly proved.[14]
Second. The subject check was later dishonored by the drawee bank when the same was presented for payment.
Third. Petitioner came to know of the check’s dishonor when she received Mr. Cembrano’s demand letter dated September 15, 2004.
Penalty
Applying S.C Administrative Circular Nos. 13-2001 and 12-2000[15], We deem it appropriate to impose a fine in the amount of P 200,000.00 which is equal to the amount of the check issued with the commensurate subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency subject to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. Likewise, petitioner is ordered to indemnify the total amount P 300,000.00 which is the face value of the subject check. We therefore affirm the penalty imposed by the court a quo.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated June 28, 2011, of the Regional Trial Court, Sixth Judicial Region, Branch 35, Iloilo City in Crim Case No.11-69840 is AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Maxino, P.A.A., and Francisco, R.C., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p. 41
[2] Rollo, p. 53
[3] Rollo, p. 89
[4] Rollo, p. 53
[5] Rollo, p. 41
[6] BPI vs Casa Montessori Internacionale, GR Nos. 149454 and 149507, May 28, 2004
[7] GR Nos. 107382 and 107612, January 31, 1996
[8] Spouses Salonga vs Spouses Concepcion, GR No. 151333, September 20, 2005
[9] Distajo vs Court of Appeals, GR No. 112954, August 25, 2000
[10] Domingo vs Domingo, GR No. 150897, April 11, 2005
[11] Jimenez vs Commission of Ecumenical Mission, GR No. 140472, June 10, 2002
[12] People vs Aure, GR No. 185163, January 17, 2011
[13] Mitra vs People, GR No. 191404, July 5, 2010
[14] Caras v. CA, G.R. No. 129900, 2 October 2001,
[15] Jao Yu vs People, GR No. 134172, September 20, 2004,