You are on page 1of 4

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 143375 July 6, 2001
RUTH D. BAUTSTA, petitioner,
vs.
COURT O! APPEA"S, O!!CE O! THE REGONA" STATE PROSECUTOR,
REGON #, $%& SUSAN A"O'A, respondents.
BE""OS""O, J.:
his petition for certiorari presents a ne! di"ension in the ever controversial #atas
Pa"bansa #ilan$ %% or The Bouncing Checks Law. he &uestion posed is !hether
the dra!er of a chec' !hich is dishonored due to lac' of sufficient funds can be
prosecuted under #P %% even if the chec' is presented for pa("ent after ninet( )*+,
da(s fro" its due date. he bur$eonin$ -urisprudence on the "atter appears silent on
this point.
So"eti"e in .pril /**0 petitioner Ruth D. #autista issued to private respondent
Susan .lo1a Metroban' Chec' No. ++2+/3+45 dated 0 Ma( /**0 for P/,2++,+++.++
dra!n on Metroban' Cavite Cit( #ranch. .ccordin$ to private respondent, petitioner
assured her that the chec' !ould be sufficientl( funded on the "aturit( date.
On %+ October /**0 private respondent presented the chec' for pa("ent. he
dra!ee ban' dishonored the chec' because it !as dra!n a$ainst insufficient funds
)D.I6,.
On /7 March /*** private respondent filed a co"plaint8affidavit !ith the Cit(
Prosecutor of Cavite Cit(.
/
In addition to the details of the issuance and the dishonor
of the chec', she also alle$ed that she "ade repeated de"ands on petitioner to
"a'e arran$e"ents for the pa("ent of the chec' !ithin five )2, !or'in$ da(s after
receipt of notice of dishonor fro" the ban', but that petitioner failed to do so.
Petitioner then sub"itted her o!n counter8affidavit assertin$ in her defense that
present"ent of the chec' !ithin ninet( )*+, da(s fro" due date thereof !as an
essential ele"ent of the offense of violation of #P %%. Since the chec' !as presented
for pa("ent /77 da(s after its due date, it !as no lon$er punishable under #P %%
and therefore the co"plaint should be dis"issed for lac' of "erit. She also clai"ed
that she alread( assi$ned private respondent her condo"iniu" unit at .ntel Seavie!
Condo"iniu", Ro9as #oulevard, as full pa("ent for the bounced chec's thus
e9tin$uishin$ her cri"inal liabilit(.
On %% .pril /***, the investi$atin$ prosecutor issued a resolution reco""endin$ the
filin$ of an Information a$ainst petitioner for violation of #P %%, !hich !as approved
b( the Cit( Prosecutor.
On /4 Ma( /*** petitioner filed !ith the Office of the Re$ional State Prosecutor
)ORSP, for Re$ion IV a petition for revie! of the %% .pril /*** resolution. he ORSP
denied the petition in a one )/,8pa$e resolution dated %2 :une /***. On 2 :ul( /***
petitioner filed a "otion for reconsideration, !hich the ORSP also denied on 4/
.u$ust /***. .ccordin$ to the ORSP, onl( resolutions of prosecutors dis"issin$ a
cri"inal co"plaint !ere co$ni;able for revie! b( that office, citin$ Depart"ent Order
No. %%4.
On / October /*** petitioner filed !ith the Court of .ppeals a petition for revie! of
the resolution of the ORSP, Re$ion IV, dated %% .pril /*** as !ell as the order dated
4/ .u$ust /*** den(in$ reconsideration. he appellate court issued the assailed
Resolution dated %7 October /*** den(in$ due course outri$ht and dis"issin$ the
petition.
%
.ccordin$ to respondent appellate court 8
A petition for review is appropriate under Rule 42 (!!" Rules of Civil
#rocedure$ from a decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the
e%ercise of its appellate &urisdiction' filed in the Court of Appeals( Rule 4) %
% % provides for appeal' via a petition for review % % % from &udgment or final
orders of the Court of Ta% Appeals and *uasi+,udicial Agencies to the Court
of Appeals( #etitioner-s .#etition for Review. of the /R0# resolution does
not fall under an1 of the agencies mentioned in Rule 4) % % % % It is worth to
note that petitioner in her three ()$ assigned errors charged the /R0# of
.serious error of law and grave a2use of discretion(. The grounds relied
upon 21 petitioner are proper in a petition for certiorari % % % % 3ven if 4e
treat the .#etition for Review. as a petition for certiorari' petitioner failed to
allege the essential re5uirements of a special civil action( Besides' the
remed1 of petitioner is in the Regional Trial Court' following the doctrine of
hierarch1 of courts % % % % (italics supplied$
6irst, so"e $round rules. his case !ent to the Court of .ppeals b( !a( of petition
for revie! under Rule 34 of the /**5 Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 34 applies to
<appeals fro" -ud$"ents or final orders of the Court of a9 .ppeals and fro" a!ards,
-ud$"ents, final orders or resolutions of or authori;ed b( an( &uasi8-udicial a$enc( in
the e9ercise of &uasi8-udicial functions.<
4

Petitioner sub"its that a prosecutor conductin$ a preli"inar( investi$ation perfor"s
a &uasi8-udicial function, citin$ Co&uangco v( #C77,
3
8oh v( Court of Appeals,
2

Anda1a v( #rovincial 6iscal of 0urigao del 9orte
7
and Crespo v( :ogul.
5
In these
cases this Court held that the po!er to conduct preli"inar( investi$ation is &uasi8
-udicial in nature. #ut this state"ent holds true onl( in the sense that, li'e &uasi8
-udicial bodies, the prosecutor is an office in the e9ecutive depart"ent e9ercisin$
po!ers a'in to those of a court. =ere is !here the si"ilarit( ends.
1
. closer scrutin( !ill sho! that preli"inar( investi$ation is ver( different fro" other
&uasi8-udicial proceedin$s. . &uasi8-udicial bod( has been defined as <an or$an of
$overn"ent other than a court and other than a le$islature !hich affects the ri$hts of
private parties throu$h either ad-udication or rule8"a'in$.<
0

In Lu;on <evelopment Bank v( Lu;on <evelopment Bank 3mplo1ees,
*
!e held that a
voluntar( arbitrator, !hether actin$ solel( or in a panel, en-o(s in la! the status of a
&uasi8-udicial a$enc(, hence his decisions and a!ards are appealable to the Court of
.ppeals. his is so because the a!ards of voluntar( arbitrators beco"e final and
e9ecutor( upon the lapse of the period to appeal>
/+
and since their a!ards deter"ine
the ri$hts of parties, their decisions have the sa"e effect as -ud$"ents of a court.
herefore, the proper re"ed( fro" an a!ard of a voluntar( arbitrator is a petition for
revie! to the Court of .ppeals, follo!in$ Revised .d"inistrative Circular No. /8*2,
!hich provided for a unifor" procedure for appellate revie! of all ad-udications of
&uasi8-udicial entities, !hich is no! e"bodied in Rule 34 of the /**5 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
On the other hand, the prosecutor in a preli"inar( investi$ation does not deter"ine
the $uilt or innocence of the accused. =e does not e9ercise ad-udication nor rule8
"a'in$ functions. Preli"inar( investi$ation is "erel( in&uisitorial, and is often the
onl( "eans of discoverin$ the persons !ho "a( be reasonabl( char$ed !ith a cri"e
and to enable the fiscal to prepare his co"plaint or infor"ation. It is not a trial of the
case on the "erits and has no purpose e9cept that of deter"inin$ !hether a cri"e
has been co""itted and !hether there is probable cause to believe that the accused
is $uilt( thereof.
//
?hile the fiscal "a'es that deter"ination, he cannot be said to be
actin$ as a &uasi8court, for it is the courts, ulti"atel(, that pass -ud$"ent on the
accused, not the fiscal.
/%

=ence, the Office of the Prosecutor is not a &uasi8-udicial bod(> necessaril(, its
decisions approvin$ the filin$ of a cri"inal co"plaint are not appealable to the Court
of .ppeals under Rule 34. Since the ORSP has the po!er to resolve appeals !ith
finalit( onl( !here the penalt( prescribed for the offense does not e9ceed prision
correccional, re$ardless of the i"posable fine,
/4
the onl( re"ed( of petitioner, in the
absence of $rave abuse of discretion, is to present her defense in the trial of the
case.
#esides, it is !ell8settled that the courts cannot interfere !ith the discretion of the
fiscal to deter"ine the specificit( and ade&uac( of the offense char$ed. =e "a(
dis"iss the co"plaint forth!ith if he finds it to be insufficient in for" or substance or if
he finds no $round to continue !ith the in&uir(> or, he "a( other!ise proceed !ith
the investi$ation if the co"plaint is, in his vie!, in due and proper for".
/3

In the present recourse, not!ithstandin$ the procedural lapses, !e $ive due course
to the petition, in vie! of the novel le$al &uestion involved, to prevent further dela( of
the prosecution of the cri"inal case belo!, and "ore i"portantl(, to dispel an( notion
that procedural technicalities are bein$ used to defeat the substantive ri$hts of
petitioner.
Petitioner is accused of violation of #P %% the substantive portion of !hich reads 8
Section /. Chec's !ithout sufficient funds. 8 An1 person who makes or
draws and issues an1 check to appl1 on account or for value' knowing at
the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee 2ank for the pa1ment of such in full upon presentment' which check
is su2se5uentl1 dishonored 21 the drawee 2ank for insufficienc1 of funds or
credit or would have 2een dishonored for the same reason had not the
drawer' without an1 valid reason' ordered the 2ank to stop pa1ment' shall
2e punished 21 imprisonment of not less than thirt1 ()=$ da1s 2ut not more
than one ($ 1ear or 21 a fine of not less than 2ut not more than dou2le the
amount of the check which fine shall in no case e%ceed Two >undred
Thousand #esos' or 2oth such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of
the court(
The same penalt1 shall 2e imposed upon an1 person who' having sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee 2ank 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 ninet1 (!=$ da1s from
the date appearing thereon' for which reason it is dishonored 21 the drawee
2ank % % % % )italics supplied,.
.n anal(sis of Sec. / sho!s that The Bouncing Checks Law penali;es t!o )%,
distinct acts@ 6irst, "a'in$ or dra!in$ and issuin$ an( chec' to appl( on account or
for value, 'no!in$ at the ti"e of issue that the dra!er does not have sufficient funds
in or credit !ith the dra!ee ban'> and, second, havin$ sufficient funds in or credit
!ith the dra!ee ban' shall fail to 'eep sufficient funds or to "aintain a credit to cover
the full a"ount of the chec' if presented !ithin a period of ninet( )*+, da(s fro" the
date appearin$ thereon, for !hich reason it is dishonored b( the dra!ee ban'.
/2

In the first para$raph, the dra!er 'no!s that he does not have sufficient funds to
cover the chec' at the ti"e of its issuance, !hile in the second para$raph, the
dra!er has sufficient funds at the ti"e of issuance but fails to 'eep sufficient funds or
"aintain credit !ithin ninet( )*+, da(s fro" the date appearin$ on the chec'. In both
instances, the offense is consu""ated b( the dishonor of the chec' for insufficienc(
of funds or credit.
he chec' involved in the first offense is !orthless at the ti"e of issuance since the
dra!er had neither sufficient funds in nor credit !ith the dra!ee ban' at the ti"e,
!hile that involved in the second offense is $ood !hen issued as dra!er had
sufficient funds in or credit !ith the dra!ee ban' !hen issued.
/7
Ander the first
offense, the ninet( )*+,8da( present"ent period is not e9pressl( provided, !hile such
period is an e9press ele"ent of the second offense.
/5

6ro" the alle$ations of the co"plaint, it is clear that petitioner is bein$ prosecuted for
violation of the first para$raph of the offense.
2
Petitioner asserts that she could not be prosecuted for violation of #P %% on the
si"ple $round that the sub-ect chec' !as presented /77 da(s after the date stated
thereon. She cites Sec. % of #P %% !hich reads 8
Sec. %. Evidence of 'no!led$e of insufficient funds. 8 The making' drawing
and issuance of a check pa1ment which is refused 21 the drawee 2ecause
of insufficient funds in or credit with such 2ank' when presented within
ninet1 (!=$ da1s from the date of the check' shall 2e prima facie evidence of
knowledge of such insufficienc1 of funds or credit unless such maker or
drawer pa1s the holder thereof the amount due thereon' or makes
arrangements for pa1ment in full 21 the drawee of such check within five (?$
2anking da1s after receiving notice that such check has not 2een paid 21
the drawee )italics supplied,.
Petitioner interprets this provision to "ean that the ninet( )*+,8da( present"ent
period is an ele"ent of the offenses punished in #P %%. She asseverates that <for a
"a'er or issuer of a chec' to be covered b( #.P. %%, the chec' issued b( hi"Bher is
one that is dishonored !hen presented for pa("ent !ithin ninet( )*+, da(s fro" date
of the chec'. If the dishonor occurred after present"ent for pa("ent be(ond the
ninet( )*+,8da( period, no cri"inal liabilit( attaches> onl( a civil case for collection of
su" of "one( "a( be filed, if !arranted.< o bolster this ar$u"ent, she relies on the
vie! espoused b( :ud$e David C. Nitafan in his treatise 8
/0
Although evidentiar1 in nature' section 2 of the law must 2e taken as
furnishing an additional element of the offense defined in the first paragraph
of section 2ecause it provides for the evidentiar1 fact of .knowledge of
insufficienc1 of funds or credit. which is an element of the offense defined in
said paragraph@ otherwise said provision of section 2 would 2e rendered
without meaning and nugator1( The rule of statutor1 construction is that the
parts of a statute must 2e read together in such a manner as to give effect
to all of them and that such parts shall not 2e construed as contradicting
each other( The same section cannot 2e deemed to suppl1 an additional
element for the offense under the second paragraph of section 2ecause
the !=+da1 presentment period is alread1 a 2uilt+in element in the definition
of said offense )italics supplied,.
?e are not convinced. It is funda"ental that ever( ele"ent of the offense "ust be
alle$ed in the co"plaint or infor"ation, and "ust be proved be(ond reasonable
doubt b( the prosecution. ?hat facts and circu"stances are necessar( to be stated
"ust be deter"ined b( reference to the definitions and the essentials of the specific
cri"es.
/*

he ele"ents of the offense under #P %% are )a, the "a'in$, dra!in$ and issuance
of an( chec' to appl( to account or for value> )b, the "a'er, dra!er or issuer 'no!s
at the ti"e of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit !ith the dra!ee
ban' for the pa("ent of such chec' in full upon its present"ent> and, )c, the chec' is
subse&uentl( dishonored b( the dra!ee ban' for insufficienc( of funds or credit or
!ould have been dishonored for the sa"e reason had not the dra!er, !ithout an(
valid reason, ordered the ban' to stop pa("ent.
%+

he ninet( )*+,8da( period is not a"on$ these ele"ents. Section % of #P %% is clear
that a dishonored chec' presented !ithin the ninet( )*+,8da( period creates a prima
facie presu"ption of 'no!led$e of insufficienc( of funds, !hich is an essential
ele"ent of the offense. Since 'no!led$e involves a state of "ind difficult to establish,
the statute itself creates a prima facie presu"ption of the e9istence of this ele"ent
fro" the fact of dra!in$, issuin$ or "a'in$ a chec', the pa("ent of !hich !as
subse&uentl( refused for insufficienc( of funds.
%/
he ter" prima facie evidence
denotes evidence !hich, if une9plained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain the
proposition it supports or to establish the facts, or to counterbalance the presu"ption
of innocence to !arrant a conviction.
%%

he presu"ption in Sec. % is not a conclusive presu"ption that forecloses or
precludes the presentation of evidence to the contrar(.
%4
Neither does the ter" prima
facie evidence preclude the presentation of other evidence that "a( sufficientl( prove
the e9istence or 'no!led$e of insufficienc( of funds or lac' of credit. Surel(, the la!
is not so circu"scribed as to li"it proof of 'no!led$e e9clusivel( to the dishonor of
the sub-ect chec' !hen presented !ithin the prescribed ninet( )*+, da( period. he
deliberations on the passa$e of #P %% )then 'no!n as Cabinet #ill No. *, bet!een
the author, for"er Solicitor Ceneral Estelito P. Mendo;a, and #ataan .sse"bl("an
Pablo Ro"an prove insi$htful 8
MR. ROM.N@ 9 9 9 9 Ander Section /, !ho is the person !ho "a( be liable
under this SectionD ?ould it be the "a'er or the dra!erD =o! about the
endorser, Mr. Spea'erD
MR. MENDOE.@ Fiable.
MR. ROM.N@ he endorser, therefore, under Section / is char$ed !ith the
dut( of 'no!in$ at the ti"e he endorses and delivers a chec' . . . .
:R( :39</AAB If the endorser is charged for violation of the Act then the
fact of knowledge must 2e proven 21 positive evidence 2ecause the
presumption of knowledge arises onl1 against the maker or the drawer( It
does not arise as against endorser under the following section )italics
supplied,.
MR. ROM.N@ #ut under Section /, it sa(s here@ <.n( person !ho shall
"a'e or dra! or utter or deliver an( chec'.< he preposition is dis-unctive,
so that an( person !ho delivers an( chec' 'no!in$ at the ti"e of such
"a'in$ or such deliver( that the "a'er or dra!er has no sufficient funds
!ould be liable under Section /.
3
MR. MENDOE.@ hat is correct Mr. Spea'er. #ut, as I said, !hile there is
liabilit( even as a$ainst endorser, for e9a"ple, the presu"ption of
'no!led$e of insufficient funds arises onl( a$ainst the "a'er or dra!er
under Section %.
MR. ROM.N@ Ges, Mr. Spea'er. It is true> ho!ever, under Section /,
endorsers of chec's or bills of e9chan$e !ould find it necessar( since the(
"a( be char$ed !ith the 'no!led$e at the ti"e the( ne$otiate bills of
e9chan$e the( have no sufficient funds in the ban' or depositor(.
:R( :39</AAB In order that an endorser ma1 2e held lia2le' there must
2e evidence showing that at the time he endorsed the check he was aware
that the drawer would not have sufficient funds to cover the check upon
presentation( That evidence must 2e presented 21 the prosecution(
>owever' if the one changed is the drawer' then that evidence need not 2e
presented 21 the prosecution 2ecause that fact would 2e esta2lished 21
presumption under 0ection 2 )italics supplied$.
%3

.n endorser !ho passes a bad chec' "a( be held liable under #P %%, even thou$h
the presu"ption of 'no!led$e does not appl( to hi", if there is evidence that at the
ti"e of endorse"ent, he !as a!are of the insufficienc( of funds. It is evident fro" the
fore$oin$ deliberations that the presu"ption in Sec. % !as intended to facilitate proof
of 'no!led$e and not to foreclose ad"issibilit( of other evidence that "a( also prove
such 'no!led$e. hus, the onl( conse&uence of the failure to present the chec' for
pa("ent !ithin ninet( )*+, da(s fro" the date stated is that there arises no prima
facie presu"ption of 'no!led$e of insufficienc( of funds. #ut the prosecution "a(
still prove such 'no!led$e throu$h other evidence. ?hether such evidence is
sufficient to sustain probable cause to file the infor"ation is addressed to the sound
discretion of the Cit( Prosecutor and is a "atter not controllable b( certiorari.
Certainl(, petitioner is not left in a lurch as the prosecution "ust prove 'no!led$e
!ithout the benefit of the presu"ption, and she "a( present !hatever defenses are
available to her in the course of the trial.
he distinction bet!een the ele"ents of the offense and the evidence of these
ele"ents is analo$ous or a'in to the difference bet!een ultimate facts and
evidentiar1 facts in civil cases. Cltimate facts are the essential and substantial facts
!hich either for" the basis of the pri"ar( ri$ht and dut( or !hich directl( "a'e up
the !ron$ful acts or o"issions of the defendant, !hile evidentiar1 facts are those
!hich tend to prove or establish said ultimate facts.
%2
.ppl(in$ this analo$( to the
case at bar, knowledge of insufficienc1 of funds is the ulti"ate fact, or ele"ent of the
offense that needs to be proved, !hile dishonor of the chec' presented !ithin ninet(
)*+, da(s is "erel( the evidentiar1 fact of such 'no!led$e.
It is !orth reiteratin$ that courts !ill not nor"all( interfere !ith the prosecutorHs
discretion to file a cri"inal case !hen there is pro2a2le cause to do so. #ro2a2le
cause has been defined as the e9istence of such facts and circu"stances as !ould
e9cite the belief in a reasonable "ind, actin$ on the facts !ithin the 'no!led$e of the
prosecutor, that the person char$ed !as $uilt( of the cri"e for !hich he !as
prosecuted.
%7
he prosecutor has ruled that there is pro2a2le cause in this case, and
!e see no reason to disturb the findin$.
?=ERE6ORE, the assailed Resolution of the Court of .ppeals dated %7 October
/*** !hich dis"issed the petition for revie! &uestionin$ the resolution of the Office
of the Re$ional State Prosecutor, Re$ion IV, dated %% .pril /***, and its order dated
4/ .u$ust /*** den(in$ reconsideration is A!!RMED. Costs a$ainst petitioner.
SO ORDERED.Dwphi(nEt
4

You might also like