OFELIA MARIGOMEN, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Marigomen versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is Marigomen versus People of the Philippines, a criminal case for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, Batas Pambansa Bilang Dalawampu't Dalawa. Ofelia Marigomen, the finance officer of a sugar company, drew and signed postdated corporate checks in favor of Caltex Philippines, which were later dishonored by the drawee bank. She was convicted by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The case matters because the Supreme Court uses it to fix a hard procedural rule in bouncing check prosecutions: the notice of dishonor must be in writing, and it must be actually sent to and received by the very person who drew the check, not merely by the corporation on whose behalf she acted.

Procedural History

Caltex filed criminal complaints with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Bacolod City. Three separate Informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang Dalawampu't Dalawa were filed with the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch Forty-Four, and docketed as Criminal Case Numbers Thirteen Thousand Twelve to Thirteen Thousand Fourteen. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment convicting Ofelia Marigomen and John Dalao, sentencing each to imprisonment and ordering them to pay civil indemnity corresponding to the value of the checks.

Marigomen appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, but modified the penalty by imposing fines, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, in lieu of imprisonment. It held that the notices of demand sent by Caltex to the company were sufficient notice to Marigomen and Dalao. Marigomen's motion for reconsideration was denied. She then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, which granted the petition.

Facts

Caltex Philippines sold gasoline and oil products to Industrial Sugar Resources, Incorporated, which had been granted a credit line. Ofelia Marigomen was the finance officer of the company, and John Dalao was the assistant to the general manager. Both were authorized to draw and sign checks against the company's account at the Far East Bank and Trust Company, Bacolod City Branch. Caltex agreed that purchases would be paid through postdated checks delivered upon release of the oil products.

In March and April of 1992, the company took delivery of oil products, and postdated checks drawn and signed by Marigomen and Dalao were issued in favor of Caltex. When presented on their due dates, several checks were dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds, and one check was dishonored because the account had been closed. Caltex made verbal demands for replacement of the checks with manager's checks or cash, without success. On May 6, 1992, Caltex sent a confirmation telegram to the company informing it of the dishonor and again demanding replacement, but received no reply.

Marigomen testified that she was employed as finance officer from September 15, 1991 and resigned on March 31, 1992. She claimed she never received any written notice or telegram from Caltex demanding payment of the dishonored checks, and that she learned of the dishonor only when she received a subpoena from the City Prosecutor. She insisted she did not know that the company's funds were insufficient at the time she issued the checks.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the conviction despite the absence of any notice of dishonor actually sent to and received by the petitioner.
• Whether or not the participation of a private prosecutor in the direct examination was proper.
• Whether or not the petitioner may be held civilly liable for the amounts of the checks.
• Whether or not there was a valid offer of exhibits against the petitioner.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Bilang Dalawampu't Dalawa defines the offense and its penalty:

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 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.

This provision supplies the elements of the crime that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Section 2 of the same law creates the prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds:

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.

This provision is the source of the accused's right to be notified of dishonor, because the five banking day period to make arrangements for payment runs only from receipt of that notice.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and acquitted her. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the second element of the crime, namely the knowledge of the drawer that the funds were insufficient at the time of issue. The Court explained that the notice of dishonor must be in writing, because a verbal notice is not enough, and it must be actually sent to and received by the person who drew the check. Where the drawer is an officer of a corporation, notice of dishonor to the corporation is not notice to the officer. Responsibility under the Bouncing Checks Law is personal to the accused, so personal knowledge of the notice of dishonor is necessary, and constructive notice to the corporation does not satisfy due process. The Court found that the prosecution presented no employee of the telegraph company to prove that the telegram was transmitted to and received by the company, and no evidence that the petitioner herself received the telegram or a separate copy of it.

Because the conviction could not stand, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and acquitted the petitioner of all the charges, which necessarily disposed of the questions on the private prosecutor, civil liability, and the offer of exhibits.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the elements of a violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang Dalawampu't Dalawa are the making, drawing, and issuance of a check for account or value; knowledge of the drawer at the time of issue that there are no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank; and subsequent dishonor of the check for insufficiency of funds or credit. Second, the notice of dishonor must be in writing; a verbal notice is insufficient. Third, the notice must be actually sent to and received by the drawer, because the law gives the drawer five banking days from receipt of notice to pay or make arrangements for payment, which operates as a complete defense. Fourth, where the drawer is a corporate officer, notice to the corporation is not notice to the officer; responsibility under the law is personal to the accused. Fifth, penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals were reversed and set aside, and Ofelia Marigomen was acquitted of all the charges, with the bonds posted for her provisional liberty cancelled.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the notice of dishonor must be in writing and must be actually sent to and received by the drawer, and notice to the corporation is not notice to its officer. Examiners use this case to test the elements of the Bouncing Checks Law and the due process requirement of personal written notice of dishonor.