Santos [Negotiable Instruments]
BAYANI v. PEOPLE
Topic: Consideration
DOCTRINE:
SECTION 28. Effect of want of consideration. Absence or failure of
consideration is a matter of defense as against any person not a
holder in due course; and partial failure of consideration is a
defense pro tanto, whether the failure is an ascertained and
liquidated amount or otherwise.
SECTION 24. Presumption of consideration. Every negotiable
instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued for a valuable
consideration; and every person whose signature appears thereon to
have become a party thereto for value.
FACTS:
Alicia Rubia arrived at the grocery store of Dolores
Evangelista and subsequently asked the latter to rediscount
her PSBank check amounting to Php 55,000
The check was drawn by Leodegario Bayani, petitioner
herein, against his account with PSBank and then post-
dated August 29, 1992
Considering that both Rubia and Bayani were long-time
customers and knowing the fact that Bayani is a good man,
Evangelista agreed to rediscount the check
However, when Evangelista deposited the check in her
account with the Far East Bank and Trust company on
September 11, 1992, the check was dishonored for the
reason that Bayani had closed the said account with PSBank
The dishonoring of the check was evidenced by a stamp at
its dorsal portion
Evangelista then informed Rubia that the said check was
dishonored and demanded the return of her Php 55,000
Rubia, in her reply, stated that she was only requested by
Bayani to have the check rediscounted
A series of finger pointing ensued but ultimately it led to
Evangelista filing a case against Bayani for violating BP22
Bayani, in his defense stated that there was no valuable
consideration when Evangelista issued the check. He did not
receive the Php 55,000.
It must be noted that Bayani merely stated the fact that he
did not receive the money from Evangelista; no further effort
was given by Bayani to prove so.
RTC: ruled against Bayani
CA: confirmed the decision by the RTC
ISSUE: Whether or not Bayanis defense of lack of valuable
consideration is valid
HELD:
NO
Petitioner cannot evade criminal liability by merely stating
that he did not receive the money
It was shown during the trial that Evangelista rediscounted
the check and gave the Php 55,000 to Rubia after the latter
endorsed the same; therefore, it must be considered that
Evangelista is a holder in due course
According to Section 28 of the NIL, absence or failure of
consideration is a matter of defense only as against any
person not in due course
Moreover in Section 24 of the NIL, it is presumed that there
is a valid consideration; mere denial of receipt of the money
cannot overcome this presumption
PETITION BY BAYANI IS DENIED