IRMA IDOS, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents
296 SCRA 194, September 25, 1998

Facts:

Irma Idos, petitioner, formed a short-lived partnership with Eddie Alarilla, respondent, for a
leather tanning business. Upon the business’ liquidation, it had receivables and stocks worth
P1,800,000. For the share of Alarilla, Idos issued four post-dated checks of which only three
out of four checks were encashed. This impelled Alarilla to file for a BP 22 case against Idos
when the latter refused to pay the value of the check after the former has demanded for it.
On her defense, Idos claimed that the check served only as an “assurance” of Alarilla’s share
in the partnership and that it was not supposed to be deposited until the stocks have been
sold. This was refuted by Alarilla and subsequently Idos was convicted by the trial court of
the offense charged. The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Issue:

Whether or not Idos violated BP 22?

Held:

No. One of the elements of the offense penalized under BP 22 is “the making, drawing and
issuance of any check to apply for any account or for value.” In this case Idos showed enough
evidence that the check was to be funded from receivables to be collected and goods to be
sold by the partnership. First, only one of the fours check were not encashed and second,
even Alarilla himself admitted that there was no consideration for the issuance of the check.
Hence the check in question was not issued for any debt of or any account due and payable
by the petitioner. Moreover, Idos and Alarilla were still in the “winding up” of the affairs of
the partnership hen the check was issued as evidenced by the fact that they still had to sell
the goods on hand and collect the receivables from debtors. As provided by the Civil Code:
winding-up is the process of settling business affairs after dissolution, i.e. collecting of assets
previously demandable; termination is the point in time after all the partnership affairs have
been wound up. Thus, since that partnership has not been terminated, the petitioner and
private complainant remained as co-partners. The check was thus issued by the petitioner
to complainant as would a partner to another and not as payment from a debtor to a creditor.
Idos did not violate BP 22.