The Supreme Court denied the petition of spouses Amel Carlos and Marivic Carlos and affirmed their conviction for six counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Anti-Bouncing Check Law. The Court affirmed the May 29, 2024 Decision and October 21, 2024 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 168394.
The Case
The case stemmed from six separate Informations, all dated July 20, 2016, charging spouses Carlos with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, committed against private respondent Tire Star, Inc. The Informations alleged that the spouses issued to Tire Star, Inc., represented by Ma. Ruth C. Ulanday, six checks drawn against Eastwest Bank to apply on account.
According to the Informations, the accused knew at the time of issue that they did not have sufficient funds in credit with the drawee bank for payment in full of the face amount of the checks. When presented for payment within ninety (90) days from the date thereof, the checks were dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason "Account Closed." Despite receipt of notice of such dishonor, the accused failed to pay the payee the face amount or make arrangement for full payment within five (5) banking days after receiving notice.
The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 68, Pasig City, in its Decision dated January 31, 2019, found the spouses guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Branch 157 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, affirmed the MeTC ruling, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC.
The Issue
The spouses' arguments for acquittal were mainly based on the credibility of the testimony regarding service of the notice of dishonor, and whether their conviction was proper despite their denial of receipt.
The Ruling
The Court found the spouses' conviction in order. It held that, regardless of the mode of service employed, the requirement for an affidavit of service of notice of dishonor is now mandatory. This requirement, the Court said, ensures clear and reliable evidence of service, preventing unfounded claims of non-receipt.
The Court noted that the spouses did not dispute the Affidavit of Proof of Service and failed to show that it was physically impossible for them to have been at their office where service of the notice of dishonor was made. The Court reiterated that the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded respect, if not conclusive effect.
In its disposition, the Court ruled: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated May 29, 2024 and the Resolution dated October 21, 2024 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 168394 are hereby AFFIRMED." Spouses Amel Carlos and Marivic Carlos were found guilty of six counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and sentenced to pay a fine, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of inability to pay.
By the Numbers
- Criminal Case No. M-PSG-16-02208: PHP 91,000.00
- Criminal Case No. M-PSG-16-02209: PHP 83,000.00
- Criminal Case No. M-PSG-16-02210: PHP 10,600.00
- Criminal Case No. M-PSG-16-02211: PHP 171,600.00
- Criminal Case No. M-PSG-16-02212: PHP 60,000.00
- Criminal Case No. M-PSG-16-02213: PHP 193,772.58
- Total principal sum: PHP 609,972.58
- Interest: 6% per annum from June 8, 2016 (extrajudicial demand) until fully paid
- Interest on interest due: 6% per annum from filing of the Informations on August 22, 2016 until fully paid
The Court's Reasoning
The Court explained that where the drawee bank notifies the drawer of the dishonor through a text message and/or email address on record, such notification may be presented to corroborate the fact of service, subject to proper authentication under the Rules of Court and Rules on Electronic Evidence. However, this serves only as supporting evidence and does not dispense with the requirement of proper service.
On the part of the drawer, the Court said it must be shown that it was physically impossible for them to have received the notice of dishonor. For a denial to prosper, the drawer must prove it was physically impossible to be present at the place and time when service was effected. Absent such clear and convincing proof, a mere denial of receipt cannot overcome affirmative evidence of service.
The Court found there was no dispute that the spouses signed the checks and that the bank dishonored them because the account had been closed. Notice of dishonor was properly given, but the spouses failed to pay or make arrangements for payment within five days from notice. With all elements proven, the Court held they could not escape the criminal and civil liabilities imposed by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
The Court also affirmed the imposition of legal interest, citing its ruling in Lara's Gift and Decors, Inc. v. Midtown Industrial Sales, Inc., on the principal amount and on the interest due.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 277047, penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.