Non-existent

To be liable for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, the following elements must be proved: (1) the accused makes, draws or issues a check to apply to account or for valuable consideration; (2) the accused knows at the time of issuance that he does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon presentment; and (3) the check is subsequently dishonored for insufficiency of funds or credit, or it would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.

This case between Cita and Lina is an example of lack of valuable consideration in the issuance of checks.

Lina was occupying a property and paying rents for such occupation to Cita. As payments of the rentals, Lina issued postdated checks in favor of Cita. When five of said checks she issued were dishonored by the drawee bank, Cita notified Lina of such dishonor and required her to pay for the amounts of said checks. Lina however refused so Cita sued her for violation of the bouncing checks law.

For her defense Lina contended that the checks she issued lack valuable and legal consideration. She claimed that Cita was not the owner of the property and that its owners did not authorize her to lease the property and to collect rentals thereon. To support her claim, Lina presented the Joint Affidavit of the owners of the property. Cita did not controvert the said affidavit and only insisted that by issuing the five checks that were all dishonored, a prima facie case for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law already existed.

After conducting a preliminary investigation, the Assistant City Prosecutor issued a resolution finding prima facie evidence and recommending Lina’s indictment. Accordingly, Lina was charged with five counts of violation of BP 22 before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC).

Upon motion of Lina for preliminary determination of the existence of probable cause, her arraignment was deferred and Cita was ordered to file her comment to Lina’s motion. Subsequently, when Cita failed to file her comment, the MTC issued an order finding that the checks were issued by Lina without valuable consideration; that Cita was not authorized to collect rental payments from Lina and that consequently Lina can legally refuse to pay Cita on the ground that said checks were issued without valuable and legal consideration. This ruling was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which also found that Cita was not duly authorized by the owner of the subject property to collect and receive rentals thereon. Hence the RTC likewise ruled that the checks were issued for a non-existing account or without legal and valuable consideration. Were the MTC and the RTC correct?

Yes. Cita failed to controvert the Joint Affidavit executed by the owners that they did not authorize her to lease their property and to collect rentals thereon. Thus not only were the checks without valuable consideration; they were also issued for a non-existing account. The MTC and the RTC did not therefore commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Cita’s complaints (Carino vs. De Castro, G.R. 176084, April 30, 2008).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]