In order to be completely free from civil liability, a person’s acquittal must be based on the

fact he did not commit the offense. If the acquittal is based merely on reasonable doubt, the
accused may still be held civilly liable since this does not mean he did not commit the act
complained of. It may only be that the facts proved did not constitute the offense charged. x
x x” (Nissan Gallery-Ortigas vs. Felipe, G.R. No. 199067, November 11, 2013, Ponente:
Honorable Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza; emphasis supplied)

Campos could have avoided prosecution by paying the amounts due on the checks or making arrangements for
payment in full within five ( 5) days after receiving notice. Unfortunately for Campos, these circumstances were not
established in the instant case. She failed to sufficiently disclose the terms of her alleged arrangement with FWCC,
and to establish that the same had been fully complied with so as to completely satisfy the amounts covered by the
subject checks. Moreover, documents to prove such fact should have been presented before the MeTC during the
trial, yet Campos opted to be tried in absentia, and thus waived her right to present evidence.

The second issue raised on appeal also holds no ground.

Knowledge of the payee of the insufficiency or lack of funds of the drawer with the drawee bank is
immaterial as deceit is not an essential element of an offense penalized by B.P. 22. As already
aforestated, the gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a bad check, 26 hence, malice and intent
in the issuance thereof are inconsequential. Moreover, the fact that the check issued is restricted is
likewise of no moment. Cross checks or restricted checks are negotiable instruments within the
coverage of B.P. 22.

Finally, the issue raised primarily involves a question of fact. Our jurisdiction in cases brought to us
from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing the errors of law imputed to the latter, its findings of
fact being conclusive. Therefore, barring any showing that the findings complained of are totally
devoid of support in the record, such findings must stand. 28 After a careful consideration of the
records, we sustain the conclusion of the respondent court.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DISMISSED and the questioned decision
of the respondent court is hereby AFFIRMED en toto. Costs against the petitioner.

the gravamen of the offense is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or any check that is
dishonored upon its presentment for payment and putting them in circulation. The law includes all
checks drawn against banks. The law was designed to prohibit and altogether eliminate the
deleterious and pernicious practice of issuing checks with insufficient or no credit or funds therefor.
Such practice is deemed a public nuisance, a crime against public order to be abated. The mere act
of issuing a worthless check, either as a deposit, as a guarantee, or even as an evidence of a pre-
existing debt or as a mode of payment is covered by B.P. 22. It is a crime classified as malum
prohibitum.
WHEREFORE, premised considered, the MTCC Decision dated May 2, 2017 is modified as follows:

The Court hereby renders judgment ACQUITTING the accused CARLO DUQUE and TERESA
DUQUE of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. However, the Court maintains the court a quo 's finding in
ordering the accused to pay the complainant Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (PSC) the
amount of One Hundred Five Thousand Five Hundred Sixteen Pesos and Fifty Five Centavos
(Php105,516.55) as civil indemnity with interest of 12% per annum from the time the complaint was
filed on 04 October 2002 until the amount is fully paid, attorney's fees of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(Php50,000.00) and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.7