Un-presumed element

One of the elements for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law is that the person issuing the check knew at the time of the issuance of the check that he did not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment. Since this element involves a state of mind which is difficult to prove the law creates a prima facie presumption of such knowledge if the check is presented within 90 days from date thereof and the issuer or drawer failed to pay said check or make arrangement for its payment within 5 banking days from receipt of notice that such check has been dishonored by the bank. This case of Jimmy illustrates when the presumption does not arise.

Jimmy was a credit card holder of Equitable Card Network Inc. (ECN) with a credit line of P499,000. Initially he had a good record but problems arose when his accounts piled up and ECN billed him a total amount of P1,035,590.28. Believing that there were conflicts and inconsistencies in the billing and that it could not have risen to more than a million, Jimmy made arrangements with ECN by issuing three checks totaling P596,736.27. The first check he issued was Far East Bank (FEBTC) Check No. 369380 dated January 15, 1993 in the amount of P296,736.27. Then he made a proposal to reconcile his accounts. But after a series of talks his request was not heeded. So on May 17, 1993, ECN finally presented this check for payment with the drawee bank FEBTC. However, the said check was dishonored by FEBTC for the reason "Account Closed". ECN notified Jimmy of such dishonor and demanded that he replaced it with cash or make arrangement for its payment but Jimmy failed to do so. Hence ECN filed a case for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law against Jimmy before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC).

After trial wherein the collection manager of ECN testified and presented said dishonored check and its check return slip showing the reason for the dishonor, and that demand has been made on Jimmy but he still failed to make good said check, the MTC found him guilty and sentenced him to 6 months imprisonment and to indemnify ECN the sum of P296,736.27. Was the MTC correct?

No. The check which was dated January 15, 1993 was presented for payment and dishonored only on May 17,1993 or beyond ninety days (90) days from date thereof. Hence no prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit on the part of Jimmy exists. Since there is no such prima facie evidence it is incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce evidence to prove that Jimmy has knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds or credit at the time he issued FEBTC Check No. 369380 dated January 15, 1993. Unfortunately, the prosecution failed to present evidence of such knowledge on the part of Jimmy regarding the said check. Perforce, Jimmy cannot be convicted of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law. This notwithstanding, Jimmy is nevertheless liable to pay ECN the amount of P296,736.28 appearing on the face of said check as it was preponderantly proven in the civil aspect of the case that said check was one of the unpaid checks issued by Jimmy to settle his obligation which has remained unpaid (Dico vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 141669, February 28, 2005, 452 SCRA 441).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]