ALBERTO LIM, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Lim versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Alberto Lim, who was convicted of twelve counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, the Bouncing Checks Law. He appeals the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed in full the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City finding him guilty. This case matters because it clarifies the elements of the crime of issuing bouncing checks, the treatment of the defense of lack of consideration, and the proper application of penalties under the law, particularly in light of administrative circulars governing the imposition of fines versus imprisonment.

Procedural History

Twelve separate informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 were filed against Alberto Lim before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Upon motion of the prosecution, the twelve cases were consolidated and jointly tried. At arraignment, Lim pleaded not guilty.

On 10 October 1996, the trial court rendered a decision finding Lim guilty beyond reasonable doubt in all twelve cases. It sentenced him to six months of imprisonment in each case and ordered him to pay the private complainant the total amount of the twelve checks, with interest. Lim filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the trial court.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court. Dissatisfied, Lim filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising errors of law and arguing for leniency in the imposition of the penalty.

Facts

Sometime in May 1992, Alberto Lim issued to private complainant Robert Lu sixty-four Metrobank checks, including the twelve checks subject of these cases, for the purpose of rediscounting. The checks were signed by Lim in the presence of Lu at the latter's office. Upon their respective dates of maturity, each of the twelve checks was deposited by Lu, but all were dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason "Account Closed." Lu immediately informed Lim of the dishonor and demanded payment. Lim explained that he encountered financial difficulties and would settle the account in two or three weeks.

When Lim failed to make good on his promise, Lu endorsed the case to his lawyer, who sent a demand letter dated 29 December 1992. Lim received the demand letter on 9 January 1993. For his failure to settle his account within the grace period provided in the demand letter, the twelve informations were filed against him.

For his defense, Lim alleged that he acted as a guarantor for the obligation of Sarangani Commercial, Incorporated to Lu. He claimed that when the original checks of the corporation bounced, he issued more than three hundred replacement checks, including the twelve subject checks. He contended that Lu had already received payments exceeding the total obligation, and therefore the twelve checks lacked valuable consideration. The trial court rejected this defense, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

• Whether or not the twelve checks subject of the case lacked valuable consideration, thereby absolving the petitioner from liability under the Bouncing Checks Law.
• Whether or not the petitioner should be granted leniency in the imposition of the penalty, with the sentence of imprisonment deleted and replaced by a fine in an increased amount.

Applicable Provisions

Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, the Bouncing Checks Law, provides for the crime of issuing a check without sufficient funds. The decision enumerates the elements of the offense as follows:

The law enumerates the elements of B.P. Blg. 22 to be (1) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.

These elements bear directly on the case because the petitioner admitted the issuance and dishonor of the checks, and the Court examined whether his defense of lack of consideration could negate liability under the law.

Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioner's defense of lack of valuable consideration must fail. The Court noted that the factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be disturbed absent any clear showing that certain facts or circumstances were overlooked.

The Court found the petitioner's allegation that the checks were issued as replacements for bad checks of Sarangani Commercial, Incorporated unworthy of belief. The seven original checks were dishonored in September 1989, while the twelve checks were dated November 1992, three years later. The amounts also negated the claim, as the total of the twelve checks and the other fifty-two checks was far greater than the original obligation. The Court further observed that if the obligation had truly been paid, the petitioner should have redeemed or taken back the checks in the ordinary course of business.

On the nature of the offense, the Court stated:

It is also worthy to note that it is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes, but the act of making and issuing a check that is dishonored upon presentment for payment. The purpose for which it was issued and the terms and conditions relating to its issuance are immaterial. What is primordial is that such issued checks were worthless and the fact of its worthlessness is known to appellant at the time of their issuance, a required element under B.P. Blg. 22. This is because the mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on Administrative Circular Number 12-2000, which was clarified by Administrative Circular Number 13-2001. The Court explained that the circular does not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty but merely establishes a rule of preference. The determination of whether circumstances warrant the imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the judge.

The Court found that the petitioner was not a first-time offender, having previously been convicted of fifty counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the prior conviction involved the same set of checks, noting that the earlier cases involved two accused and different amounts. The Court held that each act of drawing and issuing a bouncing check constitutes a separate violation of the law, and the rule on one criminal intent does not apply to a statutory offense where malice or criminal intent is immaterial.

Doctrine

The crime punished by Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 is not the non-payment of an obligation but the very act of making and issuing a check that is dishonored upon presentment for payment. The purpose for which the check was issued and the terms and conditions relating to its issuance are immaterial to the prosecution.

Each act of drawing and issuing a bouncing check constitutes a separate violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. The rule that there is only one offense when the offender is moved by one criminal intent does not apply, because in a statutory offense or malum prohibitum, malice or criminal intent is immaterial.

Administrative Circular Number 12-2000 establishes only a rule of preference in the application of penalties, not an absolute prohibition against imprisonment. The judge retains discretion to impose imprisonment where the circumstances of the offense and the offender warrant it.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the judgment of the Regional Trial Court finding Alberto Lim guilty of twelve counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.

Remember This

Remember that the Bouncing Checks Law punishes the mere act of issuing a worthless check, not the failure to pay an underlying obligation, so defenses like lack of consideration will not prosper once the elements are established. Examiners like to use this case to test whether you understand that each check issued constitutes a separate offense and that prior convictions can properly be considered in denying leniency in sentencing.