G.R. No. 148211 July 25, 2006 SINCERE Z. VILLANUEVA v. MARLYN P.

NITE,* FACTS: Marlyn Nite took out a loan of P409,000 from Sincere Villanueva. Nite issued an Asian Bank Corporation (ABC) check worth P325,500. The check was dishonored due to material alteration. Then, throughNite's representative, she remitted P235,000 to Villanueva as partial payment. The other balance was to be paid on a much later date. A few days later, Villanueva filed an action for a sum of money and damages against ABC for the full amount of the dishonored check. The RTC ruled in his favor but when Nite was to withdraw money from her account, she was unable to do so because the RTC had ordered ABC to pay Villanueva the P325,000 check. ABC then remitted to the sheriff the check which Villanueva received. Nite filed a petition to seek to annul the RTC's decision. The CA held in favor Nite and was ordered to pay Nite a sum of money for extrinsic fraud. ISSUE: Whether the receipt of the check was legal. RULING: The SC ruled in favor of Nite and that Villanueva was fraudulent. The SC pointed out Villanueva's action of having to file his complaint against the bank days after he received the P235,000 payment. By filing a complaint against the bank and Nite not impleaded within, it show his intent to prevent her from opposing his action. Still, the RTC decision was to be annulled becasue as the NIL provides, the drawee cannot be held liable unless he accepts the check. There was no privity between ABC and Villanueva. [G.R. No. 153451. May 26, 2005] OFELIA MARIGOMEN vs. PEOPLE FACTS: Caltex sold their gas and oil to INSURECO through postdated checks. Petitioner was the finance officer who was authorized to sign checks against INSURECO. Three checks were dishonored due to insufficient funds. After Caltex made demands to INSURECO, which was unheeded, they filed a complaint against petitioner for violation of BP 22. Petitioner contends that while she had drawn and signed the checks she was not an employee anymore at the purchase of the products. She did not receive any telegrams or notice of the dishonored checks. The lower ruled in favor of Caltex. ISSUE: Whether petitioner was guilty of violating BP 22. RULING: The SC ruled in favor of petitioner and acquitted her. Caltex did not prove that petitioner knew that there were insufficient funds when she drew and signed those checks. Also the notice of dishonor should be in writing and not a verbal notice. The SC also said that if the drawer or maker is an officer of a corporation, the notice of dishonor to the said corporation is not notice to the employee

or officer who drew or issued the check for and in its behalf. Prosecution also failed to prove that petition receive those notices of dishonor. [G.R. NO. 139292. December 5, 2000] JOSEPHINE DOMAGSANG vs. CA FACTS: Ignacio Garcia gave petitioner a loan. Petitioner issued and delivered 18 postdated checks. When the checks were drawn, all were dishonored due the account being closed. Garcia supposedly wrote a letter to demand. Petitioner contends that he did not receive a demand letter and the checks were not issued as payment but as evidence of indebtedness. The lower court convicted petitioner. ISSUE: Whether verbal notice is enough for conviction of petitioner. RULING: The SC said that verbal notice is not enough as written notice of dishonor should be received by petitioner to convict him. A mere oral notice or demand to pay would appear to be insufficient for conviction under the law. The spirit of the law is not only for the person to be punished but also to be duly notified of the checks dishonor. The supposed letter of demand was not given weight becuase prosecution failed to formally offer it as evidence. The SC acquitted petitioner but ordered her to pay the amount plus interest. G.R. No. 154721 March 22, 2007 ALFONSO FIRAZA v. PEOPLE FACTS: Henry Samar sold a parcel of land to Alfonso Firaza. One of the modes of payment was a postdated check. When Samar presented the check for discharge, it was dishonored by reason of the account being closed. At that time, Firaza subdivided and then sold the divisions of the land. After verbal and written demands, Firaza did not pay the amount. Samar filed a complaint for estafa. The lower courts found him guilty. He knew the time of the issuance of the checks that his account was not funded. They did not accept Firaza's reason that Samar knew that the account was not funded and the check was only a guaranty for the payment. ISSUE: Whether Firaza committed estafa. RULING: The SC affirmed the lower court's decision. As per Art. 315 of the RPC, any person who postdates and issues a check, knowing he has insufficient funds, fails to cover within 3 days from receipt of notice of dishonor shall be prima facie estafa. Firaza did not dispute his knowledge of the insufficient funds.

Also, the obvious act of fraud was when Firaza sold the land knowing that the title was transferred to him and when demands were made, he failed to pay the value of the check. G.R. No. 142641 July 17, 2006 PACIFICO B. ARCEO, JR vs. PEOPLE FACTS: Pacifico Arceo obtained a loan from Josefino Cenizal. He then issued a check in favor of Cenizal, in which he promised verbally seven times that he would replace it with cash. After not replacing the check, he encashed the check but was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Cenizal went to Arceo's house to inform him of the dishonor but he was not around anymore so he went to Arceo's lawyer and gave him a letter giving him three days to pay the check. When Arceo failed, Cenizal charged him in violation of BP 22. The lower court found him guilty. Arceo contends that he should not be held liable because it was presented beyond the 90-day period provided under the law; that he only given three days to pay and not five banking days as per law; and that he paid his obligation. ISSUE: Whether Arceo is guilty. RULING: The SC denied Arceo's petition. The SC held that the life of a check is six months. Cenizal presented the check within four months of issuance. The 90-day period in the law is not an element of the offense. Arceo cannot claim that he was not given five banking days (the rule is three), because he still remained unpaid after five days of his receipt of dishonor. Lastly, his claim that he paid the obligation was only mere allegation as there was no proof of his payment and that the check still remained on Arceo.

LUIS S. WONG, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. [G.R. No. 117857. February 2, 2001] FACTS: Luis Wong was an agent of Limtong Press Inc. (LPI). The vendees tell their orders to Wong and he relays it to LPI. LPI then send their product to the vendee and Wong get the payment to be delivered to LPI. He had unremitted collections in which his customers issued postdated checks for LPI. The checks were intended as guarantee but company policy refuses to accept such. Instead, the parties agreed to apply the checks to the payment of petitioners unremitted collections. Wong told LPI to not

deposit the checks as he will replace it, but failed. LPI's checks were dishonored being the account closed. LPI filed a case of BP 22 against Wong and was convicted. Wong contends that the face value of the six checks were the amounts by owed by the customers and not himself. ISSUE: Whether Wong is holder for value. RULING: Yes. The value in the checks might have been initially intended by Wong to guarantee payments due from customers, but upon the refusal of LPI to accept said personal checks per company policy, the parties had agreed that the checks would be used to pay off petitioners unremitted collections. VICTOR TING SENG DEE and EMILY CHAN-AZAJAR, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. [G.R. No. 140665. November 13, 2000] FACTS: Juliet Ting obtained a loan from Josefina Tagle. She issued 11 postdated checks which were all dishonored. Because of her financial struggles, Juliet requested petitioners to take over her furniture business and her obligation. Petitioners agreed and replaced the 11 checks with 19 of their own. The take-over did not take place so petitioners asked Juliet to reassume her business and obligation. Petitioners asked Tagle to return the checks but instead deposited 7 of it, which was dishonored. Petitoners were found guilty of violating BP 22 by the lower court. ISSUE: Whether petitioners are guilty of violating BP 22. RULING: The SC acquitted petitioners of the crime. It was clear and undisputed that the checks in question were signed by petitioners and dishonored, but the SC held that prosecution failed to prove that issuers had knowledge that their account is unfunded which is an element of the crime. Prosecution said that the notice of dishonored was sent to registered mail and even presented a registry return receipt but this was not enough to prove that petitioners did in fact receive the notice. ALFEREZ v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 182301 January 31, 2011 FACTS: Alferez issued checks for payment to Cebu ABC Sales Commercial. The checks were dishonored and Alferez was charged with BP 22. Alferez averred that the prosecution failed to show that he received the notice of dishonor or demand letter.

The lower court held against Alferez. The CA held that Alferez did not testify and objected to the prosecution's evidence against him proving that he did receive the notice. They also held that the registry receipt and the return card show the fact of receipt. ISSUE: Whether the registry receipt and return card proves receipt of notice. RULING: The SC held in favor of Alferez and acquitted him. The prosecution only showed the two allegedly sent to Alferez but there was no attempt to authenticate the signature of the registry receipt and return card which serve proof of the receipt of the notice. Also the notice should have been mailed to Alferez or his agent. The absence of a notice of dishonor deprives the accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution. The failure of the prosecution to prove the receipt of notice of dishonor and that he was given at least five (5) banking days within which to settle his account constitutes sufficient ground for his acquittal. PEOPLE v. VIRGINIA BABY P. MONTANER G.R. No. 184053 August 31, 2011 FACTS: Petitioner issued 10 postdated checks for cash to Reynaldo Solis. When Solis presented the checks for payment, it was dishonored due the account being closed. Solis, verbally and through a notice, asked petitioner to pay the value. When petitioner failed, Solis failed a case of estafa and was convicted by the lower courts. Petitioner avers that the checks in questions were in fact borrowed from her by Marlyn Galope and there was no transaction between her and Solis. ISSUE: Whether petitioner is guilty. RULING: The Sc affirmed the decision of the lower court. The prosecution sufficiently established petitioner's guilt. If not for the checks, Solis would not have given her the money. On petitioner's claim that the checks were entrusted to Galope, the SC held that it is spineless as there is no witness or testimony to prove such. Galope was not even presented as witness. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. BARTOLOME PUZON, JR., G.R. No. 167567 September 22, 2010 FACTS: Puzon purchases SMC products on credit. He was required by SMC to issue postdated checks. When Puzon visited the SMC Sales Office to reconcile his account, he asked for one of the checks he gave. He immediately left with the checks.

The SMC demanded the return of the check. Puzon ignore it and was charged with theft. The lower court dismissed the complaint. The CA held that the checks were only security and it was not intended to be encashed thus SMC did not require ownership of the checks. ISSUE: Whether Puzon was guilty of theft. RULING: The SC denied the petition. The SC considered the element of the thing belonging to another in theft and the delivery held in Sec. 12 of the NIL. The delivery is for the purpose of giving effect which gives the holder the title to the instrument. If Puzon gave the checks in payment of his obligation then the check was transferred upon delivery and also ownership but if it was not given as a payment not then there is no intent to give effect to the instrument and also transfer of ownership. SMC failed to establish that the checks were given in payment of obligation. ROBERT DINO v. MARIA LUISA JUDAL-LOOT / G.R. No. 170912 / April 19, 2010 FACTS: Robert Dino executed 3 checks to Vivencia Consing and Fe Lobitana. After knowing that they were a part of a syndicate, Dino told the bank to stop the checks' execution but the two were already encashed. Lobitana then negotiated one of the checks to Maria Judal-Loot. When she deposited the check, the bank dishonored it. Respondents filed a suit and claimed that she was a holder in due course and for value and had no prior knowledge of past transaction. Lobitana claimed that she was only made a payee of the check. The lower courts ruled that respondents are holders in due course ordered Dino and Lobitana as drawer,to solidarily pay respondents the face value of the check. It should be noted that it was raised in the CA that the checks were crossed. Dino appealed. ISSUE: Whether respondent is a holder in due course. RULING: The SC granted the petition. Respondents should have ascertained Lobitana's title and verified from the bank the funds of the check. The SC held that because of this, respondents are guilty of gross negligence and thus not holders in due. Also it was held that there was no due presentment as Lobitana was the one who presented it. The NIL provides that, in a cross check, presentment for payment should be made by the holder or any other authorised person.

EUSEBIO GONZALES v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL BANK, EDNA OCAMPO, and ROBERTO NOCEDA / G.R. No. 180257 / February 23, 2011 FACTS: Eusebio Gonzales was a client of PCIB. He was granted a credit line by the bank through a Credit-OnHand-Loan Agreement (COHLA). His credit line was secured by his foreign currency account in the PCIB. He obtained loans covered in three promissory notes worth P1.8 million and were secured by a real estate mortgage on a land co-owned by Gonzales and the spouses Panlilio. The notes stated that the Gonzales and the Panlilios are solidarily liable. However, the Panlilios were the ones who received the P1.8 million and they eventually defaulted because their PCIB account's fund were insufficient. Gonzales then issued a check to Rene Unson worth 250K drawn against his credit line but it was dishonored as it was terminated because of the unpaid loans. The lower court held that Gonzales was solidarily liable to the notes. ISSUE: Whether Gonzales is liable to the notes he made with the Panlilios. RULING: The SC reversed the decision of the lower court but Gonzales was liable to the notes as he was an accommodation party. Gonzales is the original debtor from the beginning. Also the notes expressly stated that Gonzales and the Panlilios were solidarily liable. The reversal caused by the improper dishonor of checks by the PCIB. There was no notice to Gonzales of the default of the P1.8 million. PCIB did not give notice on their act to suspend the account.