PAZ M. DINGLE, PETITIONER, VS. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Paz M. Dingle, herein petitioner, and her husband Nestor Dingle,
are owners of a family business known as “PMD Enterprises” which was managed by
the latter.

Nestor Dingle entered into a transaction with one Ernesto Ang whereby PMD Enterprises would sell 400 of washed silica
sand to Ang and Ang gave as
advanced payment a certain amount to Nestor Dingle.

Nestor Dingle, however, failed to deliver the 400 tons of washed
silica sand, so he issued to Ang two (2) postdated
checks drawn by him and his wife as authorized
signatories of PMD Enterprises in the total amount of P51,885.93 representing the value of the undelivered washed
silica sand.  The checks were dishonored for being “drawn against
insufficient funds.” When informed of the dishonor Nestor Dingle replaced the
checks with one (1) Equitable Banking Corporation Check in the amount of
P51,885.93 which was also signed by both
spouses.  This was also dishonored.  Two (2) letters
were sent to and received by Nestor Dingle for the payment of the amount covered
by the dishonored check.  No payment was made.  Hence,
the spouses were charged with the violation of BP Blg.
22, otherwise known as the Anti-Bouncing Check Law.

The trial court found them guilty as charged and sentenced
each of them to suffer imprisonment of six (6) months of arresto mayor, to pay a fine
of P52,000.00 and to indemnify the offended party the
amount of P51,885.92.

Paz Dingle appealed and the Intermediate Appellate Court
(now the Court of Appeals)^[1]
modified the decision by
imposing upon her the penalty of imprisonment for a period of only 30
days.

Insisting on her innocence, Paz Dingle filed the instant
petition contending that she did not incur any criminal liability under BP 22
because she had no knowledge of the dishonor of the checks issued by her
husband and for that matter even the
transaction of her husband with Ang.

The Solicitor General in his Memorandum recommended that
petitioner be acquitted of the instant charge because from the testimony of
the sole prosecution witness Ernesto Ang, it was
established that he dealt exclusively with Nestor Ang.  Nowhere in his testimony is the name of
Paz Dingle ever mentioned in connection with the transaction and with the
issuance of the check.  In fact, Ang
categorically stated that it was Nestor Dingle who received his two (2) letters
of demand.  This lends credence to the testimony of Paz Dingle that
she signed the questioned checks in blank together with her husband without any
knowledge of its issuance, much less of the transaction and the fact of
dishonor.

In the case of Florentino Lozano vs. Hon. Martinez,
promulgated December 18,
1986, it was held that an essential element of the
offense is knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of
the insufficiency of his funds.

WHEREFORE, on reasonable doubt, the
assailed decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court (now the Court of Appeals)
is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one is hereby rendered ACQUITTING petitioner on
reasonable doubt.

SO
ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Alampay,
Gutierrez, Jr., Padilla, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ.,
concur.