[G.R. No. 140480. January 17, 2000]

MIRASOL DIZON vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILS.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 17 2000.

G.R. No. 140480 (Mirasol Dizon vs. People of the Philippines.)

Petitioner was charged with six (6) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. After trial, the lower court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of all charges. Petitioner then elevated her cause to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the judgment of the trial court in toto.

Unfazed, petitioner now comes to this Court insisting that 1.] the subject checks were issued not to apply to account or for value; and 2.] there is no evidence that the checks were dishonored by the drawee bank.

We disagree.

As aptly pointed out by the appellate court:

Appellant’s argument has been squarely ruled upon by the Supreme Court in the case of Llamado vs. CA,1 270 SCRA 423 (1997). holding that: "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 being malum prohibirum." (Underscoring for emphasis). In the light of such clear jurisprudence, therefore, the fact that accused-appellant issued the subject checks as mere guarantee is of no moment. What is primordial is that such issued checks were worthless and the fact of its worthlessness is known to appellant at the time of their issuance, a required element under B.P. No. 22.

Appellant’s allegation that there is no proof on the dishonor of [the] subject checks is belied by the records of the case, specifically, in the assailed decision when the court a quo said, this:

"The notice of dishonor (Exh. "B" with its submarkings) dated October 13, 1992 was sent to and received by the accused Mirasol Dizon. Despite receipt by the accused of said notice of dishonor, she failed to comply with the demand therein to pay the amounts for which the respective checks were issued or to make the necessary arrangements for payment in full of the drawee bank.

"Per Order of February 7, 1994, all of the documentary exhibits formally offered by the prosecution were admitted in evidence." (Decision, p. 6; Rollo, p. 45).

Reference to said Exhibit "B" will readily show that a notice of dishonor for appellants’s bounced checks was sent by counsel of appellee to the former per Return Card No. 508 (exhibit "B-2").

Petitioner’s argument that the prosecution presented only one witness in the person of private complainant and that no representative from drawee bank was ever presented to testify as to the complaint simply pales into insignificance vis-à-vis Tadeo v. People2 G.R. No. 129744, 29 December 1998, 300 SCRA 744. which pointedly states that-

It is not required, much less indispensable, for the prosecution to present the drawee bank’s representative as a witness to testify on the dishonor of the checks because of insufficiency of funds. The prosecution may present, as it did in this case, only the complainant as a witness to prove all the elements of the offenses charged.3 The Court listed the elements of the offense penalized under B.P. Blg. 22 in Lim Lao v. CA, 274 SCRA 572 [1997], citing Navarro v. CA, 234 SCRA 639 [1994], and People v. Laggui, 171 SCRA 305 [1989]; see also Nieva v. CA, 272 SCRA 1 [1997]; Vaca v. CA, G.R. No. 131714, 16 November 1998, 298 SCRA 656. She is a competent and qualified witness to testify that she deposited the checks to her account in a bank; that she subsequently received from the bank the checks returned unpaid with a notation "drawn against insufficient funds" stamped or written on the dorsal side of the checks themselves, or in a notice attached to the dishonored checks duly given to the complainant, and that petitioner failed to pay complainant the value of the checks within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such checks had not been paid by the drawee bank.4 B.P. Blg. 22, Sec. 2; Nieva v. CA, supra; Vaca v. CA, supra. Otherwise stated, complainant’s sole testimony suffices to identify the dishonored checks with the drawee bank’s notation stamped or written on the dorsal side "drawn against insufficient funds" or in a notice attached thereto and notice of dishonor given to the drawer.

The petition is, furthermore, defective because it lacks: 1.] an affidavit of service as required by Rule 45, Section 3 and 5 and Rule 56, Section 5 (d); and 2.] an explanation why service was not done personally as required by Rule 13, Section 11 in relation to Rule 45, Section 3 and Rule 56, Section 5 (d) of the Revised Rules of Court.

ACCORDINGLY, finding no reversible error in the challenged Decision, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court