SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 117857. February 2, 2001]

LUIS S. WONG, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondents.

DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:

For review on certiorari is the decision dated October 28, 1994 of the Court of Appeals in
C.A. G.R. CR 11856[1] which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City,
Branch 17, convicting petitioner on three (3) counts of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing
Checks Law) violations, and sentencing him to imprisonment of four (4) months for each count,
and to pay private respondent the amounts of P5,500.00, P6,410.00 and P3,375.00, respectively,
corresponding to the value of the checks involved, with the legal rate of interest from the time of
filing of the criminal charges, as well as to pay the costs.
The factual antecedents of the case are as follows:
Petitioner Wong was an agent of Limtong Press Inc. (LPI), a manufacturer of calendars. LPI
would print sample calendars, then give them to agents to present to customers. The agents
would get the purchase orders of customers and forward them to LPI. After printing the
calendars, LPI would ship the calendars directly to the customers. Thereafter, the agents would
come around to collect the payments. Petitioner, however, had a history of unremitted
collections, which he duly acknowledged in a confirmation receipt he co-signed with his wife.
[2]
Hence, petitioners customers were required to issue postdated checks before LPI would accept
their purchase orders.
In early December 1985, Wong issued six (6) postdated checks totaling P18,025.00, all dated
December 30, 1985 and drawn payable to the order of LPI, as follows:

(1) Allied Banking Corporation (ABC) Check No. 660143464-C for P6,410.00
(Exh. B);

(2) ABC Check No. 660143460-C for P 540.00 (Exh. C);

(3) ABC Check No. PA660143451-C for P5,500.00 (Exh. D);

(4) ABC Check No. PA660143465-C for P1,100.00 (Exh. E);

(5) ABC Check No. PA660143463-C for P3,375.00 (Exh. F);

 (6) ABC Check No. PA660143452-C for P1,100.00 (Exh. G).

These checks were initially intended to guarantee the calendar orders of customers who
failed to issue post-dated checks. However, following company policy, LPI refused to accept the
checks as guarantees. Instead, the parties agreed to apply the checks to the payment of petitioners
unremitted collections for 1984 amounting to P18,077.07.[3] LPI waived the P52.07 difference.
Before the maturity of the checks, petitioner prevailed upon LPI not to deposit the checks
and promised to replace them within 30 days. However, petitioner reneged on his
promise. Hence, on June 5, 1986, LPI deposited the checks with Rizal Commercial Banking
Corporation (RCBC). The checks were returned for the reason account closed. The dishonor of
the checks was evidenced by the RCBC return slip.
On June 20, 1986, complainant through counsel notified the petitioner of the dishonor.
Petitioner failed to make arrangements for payment within five (5) banking days.
On November 6, 1987, petitioner was charged with three (3) counts of violation of B.P. Blg.
22[4] under three separate Informations for the three checks amounting to P5,500.00, P3,375.00,
and P6,410.00.[5]
The Information in Criminal Case No. CBU-12055 reads as follows:[6]

That on or about the 30th day of December, 1985 and for sometime subsequent
thereto, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, knowing at the time of issue of the check she/he does not
have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check
in full upon its presentment, with deliberate intent, with intent of gain and of causing
damage, did then and there issue, make or draw Allied Banking Corporation Check
No. 660143451 dated 12-30-85 in the amount of P5,500.00 payable to Manuel T.
Limtong which check was issued in payment of an obligation of said accused, but
when the said check was presented with said bank, the same was dishonored for
reason ACCOUNT CLOSED and despite notice and demands made to redeem or
make good said check, said accused failed and refused, and up to the present time still
fails and refuses to do so, to the damage and prejudice of said Manuel T. Limtong in
the amount of P5,500.00 Philippine Currency.

Contrary to law.

Petitioner was similarly charged in Criminal Case No. 12057 for ABC Check No.
660143463 in the amount of P3,375.00, and in Criminal Case No. 12058 for ABC Check No.
660143464 for P6,410.00.Both cases were raffled to the same trial court.
Upon arraignment, Wong pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued.
Manuel T. Limtong, general manager of LPI, testified on behalf of the company. Limtong
averred that he refused to accept the personal checks of petitioner since it was against company
policy to accept personal checks from agents. Hence, he and petitioner simply agreed to use the
checks to pay petitioners unremitted collections to LPI. According to Limtong, a few days before
maturity of the checks, Wong requested him to defer the deposit of said checks for lack of
funds. Wong promised to replace them within thirty days, but failed to do so. Hence, upon advice
of counsel, he deposited the checks which were subsequently returned on the ground of account
closed.
The version of the defense is that petitioner issued the six (6) checks to guarantee the 1985
calendar bookings of his customers. According to petitioner, he issued the checks not as payment
for any obligation, but to guarantee the orders of his customers. In fact, the face value of the six
(6) postdated checks tallied with the total amount of the calendar orders of the six (6) customers
of the accused, namely, Golden Friendship Supermarket, Inc. (P6,410.00), New Society Rice and
Corn Mill (P5,500.00), Cuesta Enterprises (P540.00), Pelrico Marketing (P1,100.00), New Asia
Restaurant (P3,375.00), and New China Restaurant (P1,100.00). Although these customers had
already paid their respective orders, petitioner claimed LPI did not return the said checks to him.
On August 30, 1990, the trial court issued its decision, disposing as follows:[7]

Wherefore, premises considered, this Court finds the accused Luis S. Wong GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violations of Section 1 of Batas Pambansa
Bilang 22 in THREE (3) Counts and is hereby sentenced to serve an imprisonment of
FOUR (4) MONTHS for each count; to pay Private Complainant Manuel T. Limtong
the sums of Five Thousand Five Hundred (P5,500.00) Pesos, Six Thousand Four
Hundred Ten (P6,410.00) Pesos and Three Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-Five
(P3,375.00) Pesos corresponding to the amounts indicated in Allied Banking Checks
Nos. 660143451, 66[0]143464 and 660143463 all issued on December 30, 1985
together with the legal rate of interest from the time of the filing of the criminal
charges in Court and pay the costs.[8]

Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals. On October 28, 1994, it affirmed
the trial courts decision in toto.[9]
Hence, the present petition.[10] Petitioner raises the following questions of law -[11]

May a complainant successfully prosecute a case under BP 22 --- if there is no

more consideration or price or value -- ever the binding tie that it is in contracts in
general and in negotiable instruments in particular -- behind the checks? -- if even
before he deposits the checks, he has ceased to be a holder for value because the
purchase orders (PO's) guaranteed by the checks were already paid?

Given the fact that the checks lost their reason for being, as above stated, is it not
then the duty of complainant -- knowing he is no longer a holder for value -- to
return the checks and not to deposit them ever? Upon what legal basis then may
such a holder deposit them and get paid twice?
 Is petitioner, as the drawer of the guarantee checks which lost their reason for
being, still bound under BP 22 to maintain his account long after 90 days from
maturity of the checks?

May the prosecution apply the prima facie presumption of knowledge of lack of
funds against the drawer if the checks were belatedly deposited by the
complainant 157 days after maturity, or will it be then necessary for the
prosecution to show actual proof of lack of funds during the 90-day term?

Petitioner insists that the checks were issued as guarantees for the 1985 purchase orders
(POs) of his customers. He contends that private respondent is not a holder for value considering
that the checks were deposited by private respondent after the customers already paid their
orders. Instead of depositing the checks, private respondent should have returned the checks to
him. Petitioner further assails the credibility of complainant considering that his answers to
cross-examination questions included: I cannot recall, anymore and We have no more record.
In his Comment,[12] the Solicitor General concedes that the checks might have been initially
intended by petitioner 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. Petitioners contention that he did not demand
the return of the checks because he trusted LPIs good faith is contrary to human nature and
sound business practice, according to the Solicitor General.
The issue as to whether the checks were issued merely as guarantee or for payment of
petitioners unremitted collections is a factual issue involving as it does the credibility of
witnesses. Said factual issue has been settled by the trial court and Court of Appeals. Although
initially intended to be used as guarantee for the purchase orders of customers, they found the
checks were eventually used to settle the remaining obligations of petitioner with LPI. Although
Manuel Limtong was the sole witness for the prosecution, his testimony was found sufficient to
prove all the elements of the offense charged.[13] We find no cogent reason to depart from findings
of both the trial and appellate courts. In cases elevated from the Court of Appeals, our review is
confined to alleged errors of law. Its findings of fact are generally conclusive. Absent any
showing that the findings by the respondent court are entirely devoid of any substantiation on
record, the same must stand.[14] The lack of accounting between the parties is not the issue in this
case. As repeatedly held, this Court is not a trier of facts. [15] Moreover, in Llamado v. Court of
Appeals,[16] we held that [t]o determine the reason for which checks are issued, or the terms and
conditions for their issuance, will greatly erode the faith the public reposes in the stability and
commercial value of checks as currency substitutes, and bring about havoc in trade and in
banking communities. So what the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the
purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere
act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum. Nothing herein persuades us to hold
otherwise.
The only issue for our resolution now is whether or not the prosecution was able to establish
beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense penalized under B.P. Blg. 22.
 There are two (2) ways of violating B.P. Blg. 22: (1) by making or drawing and issuing a
check to apply on account or for value knowing at the time of issue that the check is not
sufficiently funded; and (2) by having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank at the
time of issue but failing to keep sufficient funds therein or credit with said bank to cover the full
amount of the check when presented to the drawee bank within a period of ninety (90) days.[17]
The elements of B.P. Blg. 22 under the first situation, pertinent to the present case, are:[18]

(1) The making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value;

(2) The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not
have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check
in full upon its presentment; and

(3) The subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of
funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid
cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.

Petitioner contends that the first element does not exist because the checks were not issued
to apply for account or for value. He attempts to distinguish his situation from the usual cut-and-
dried B.P. 22 case by claiming that the checks were issued as guarantee and the obligations they
were supposed to guarantee were already paid. This flawed argument has no factual basis, the
RTC and CA having both ruled that the checks were in payment for unremitted collections, and
not as guarantee. Likewise, the argument has no legal basis, for what B.P. Blg. 22 punishes is the
issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and
conditions relating to its issuance.[19]
As to the second element, B.P. Blg. 22 creates a presumption juris tantum that the second
element prima facie exists when the first and third elements of the offense are present.[20] Thus,
the makers knowledge is presumed from the dishonor of the check for insufficiency of funds.[21]
Petitioner avers that since the complainant deposited the checks on June 5, 1986, or 157
days after the December 30, 1985 maturity date, the presumption of knowledge of lack of funds
under Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 should not apply to him. He further claims that he should not be
expected to keep his bank account active and funded beyond the ninety-day period.
Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 provides:

Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. -- The making, drawing and issuance of a

check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or
credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the
check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or
credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or
makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5)
banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.
 An essential element of the offense is knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the
check of the insufficiency of his funds in or credit with the bank to cover the check upon its
presentment. Since this involves a state of mind difficult to establish, the statute itself creates
a prima facie presumption of such knowledge where payment of the check is refused by the
drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank when presented within ninety
(90) days from the date of the check. To mitigate the harshness of the law in its application, the
statute provides that such presumption shall not arise if within five (5) banking days from receipt
of the notice of dishonor, the maker or drawer makes arrangements for payment of the check by
the bank or pays the holder the amount of the check.[22]
Contrary to petitioners assertions, nowhere in said provision does the law require a maker to
maintain funds in his bank account for only 90 days. Rather, the clear import of the law is to
establish a prima facie presumption of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds under the
following conditions (1) presentment within 90 days from date of the check, and (2) the dishonor
of the check and failure of the maker to make arrangements for payment in full within 5 banking
days after notice thereof. That the check must be deposited within ninety (90) days is simply one
of the conditions for the prima facie presumption of knowledge of lack of funds to arise. It is not
an element of the offense. Neither does it discharge petitioner from his duty to maintain
sufficient funds in the account within a reasonable time thereof. Under Section 186 of the
Negotiable Instruments Law, a check must be presented for payment within a reasonable time
after its issue or the drawer will be discharged from liability thereon to the extent of the loss
caused by the delay. By current banking practice, a check becomes stale after more than six (6)
months,[23] or 180 days. Private respondent herein deposited the checks 157 days after the date of
the check. Hence said checks cannot be considered stale. Only the presumption of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds was lost, but such knowledge could still be proven by direct or
circumstantial evidence. As found by the trial court, private respondent did not deposit the
checks because of the reassurance of petitioner that he would issue new checks. Upon his failure
to do so, LPI was constrained to deposit the said checks. After the checks were dishonored,
petitioner was duly notified of such fact but failed to make arrangements for full payment within
five (5) banking days thereof. There is, on record, sufficient evidence that petitioner had
knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds in or credit with the drawee bank at the time of
issuance of the checks. And despite petitioners insistent plea of innocence, we find no error in the
respondent courts affirmance of his conviction by the trial court for violations of the Bouncing
Checks Law.
However, pursuant to the policy guidelines in Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, which
took effect on November 21, 2000, the penalty imposed on petitioner should now be modified to
a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the checks that were dishonored.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Petitioner Luis S. Wong is found liable for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 but the penalty imposed on him is hereby MODIFIED so
that the sentence of imprisonment is deleted. Petitioner is ORDERED to pay a FINE of
(1) P6,750.00, equivalent to double the amount of the check involved in Criminal Case No.
CBU-12057, (2) P12,820.00, equivalent to double the amount of the check involved in Criminal
Case No. CBU-12058, and (3) P11,000.00, equivalent to double the amount of the check
involved in Criminal Case No. CBU-12055, with subsidiary imprisonment [24] in case of
insolvency to pay the aforesaid fines. Finally, as civil indemnity, petitioner is also ordered to pay
to LPI the face value of said checks totaling P18,025.00 with legal interest thereon from the time
of filing the criminal charges in court, as well as to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo, concurred in by Justices Ricardo P. Galvez and Eugenio S.
Labitoria.
[2]
Records, p. 119.
[3]
Id. at 130.
[4]
Otherwise known as An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check without Sufficient Funds
or Credit and for Other Purposes.
[5]
As to the three (3) remaining checks, petitioner was also charged with violation of B.P. Blg. 22 in the Municipal
Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 3 in Criminal Cases Nos. 25078-R, 25079-R, and 28440-R. The MTC convicted
petitioner but on appeal, the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 14, acquitted him for lack of proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
[6]
Records, p. 89.
[7]
Rollo, pp. 185-199.
[8]
Id. at 198-199.
[9]
Id. at 88-108.
[10]
Id. at 11-86.
[11]
Id. at 17.
[12]
Id. at 290-321.
[13]
Tadeo v. People, 300 SCRA 744, 749 (1998).
[14]
Bunag Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 211 SCRA 440, 447-448 (1992); Morales vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., 197 SCRA
391, 401 (1991).
[15]
Aleria v. Velez, 298 SCRA 611, 618 (1998).
[16]
270 SCRA 423, 431 (1997).
[17]
Section 1, B.P. Blg. 22.
[18]
Lim v. People, G.R. No. 130038, September 18, 2000, p. 7.
[19]
Dichaves v. Apalit, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1274, June 8, 2000, p. 6.
[20]
Sycip Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125059, March 17, 2000, p. 8.
[21]
Vaca v. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 657, 661 (1998).
[22]
Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323, 330-331 (1986).
[23]
Pacheco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126670, December 2, 1999, p. 9.
[24]
Lim v. People, G.R. No. 130038, September 18, 2000, p. 11.