AMBITO vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 127327

FACTS:
The facts of the case show that the petitioners herein transacted business with
Pacific Star, Inc. multiple times. In said transactions, they issued down payments in
their purchases either in checks or in certificates of time deposits.
However, when the checks were presented for payment by the drawee bank,
they were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. After several demands by Pacific Star,
Inc., the petitioners still failed to settle the obligation. Thus, on complaint of Pacific
Star, Inc., the Ambitos were charged of violations of B.P. Blg. 22, Falsification and
Estafa through Falisification of Commercial Documents.
Thereafter, they were convicted of the same by the Regional Trial Court, which
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Basilio Ambito was correctly found guilty for the violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22

HELD:
No. The Court finds that the prosecution’s evidence was inadequate to prove
Basilio Ambito’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 are: (1) making, drawing, and issuance
of any check to apply on account or for value; (2) 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 the check in full upon its presentment; and (3)
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. Moreover, Section 2 of the same provides the rule
that a notice of dishonor, oral or written, must be served by the drawee bank.
In the case at bar, there is nothing in the records that would indicate that co-
petitioner Basilio Ambito was given any notice of dishonor by PSI or by Manila Bank,
the drawee bank, when the subject checks were dishonored for insufficiency of funds
upon presentment for payment. Thus, due to the failure of the prosecution to prove that
Basilio Ambito received the requisite notice of dishonor, the court cannot with moral
certainty convict him of violation of B.P. Blg. 22; his acquittal is in order.

ANDAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 136388

FACTS:
 The facts of the case show that on 04 February 1991, Anicia Ramos-Andan and
Potenciana Nieto approached Elizabeth E. Calderon and offered to buy the latter’s 18-
carat heart-shaped diamond ring. The latter agreed to sell the ring. Thereafter,
Potenciana tendered her three postdated checks. The party also prepared and signed
a receipt to evidence their transaction.
However, upon maturity of the checks, they bounced for the reason “Account
Closed.” She thus sent a demand letter to Potenciana, but she refused to pay. Thus,
prompting the offended party to seek action from the courts.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the guilt of the accused has been proven beyond reasonable
doubt; and whether or not she is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of lack of
intention to commit so grave a wrong

HELD:
As to the first issue, the Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts. The
elements of the offense as defined and penalized by Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, are: (1) postdating or issuance of a check in
payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) lack of or
insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) the payee was not informed by the
offender and the payee did not know that the offender had no funds or insufficient
funds.
All these elements are present in this case. The prosecution proved that the
checks were issued in payment of a simultaneous obligation, i.e., the checks were
issued in payment for the ring. The checks bounced when Elizabeth deposited them for
the reason "Account Closed."
On the second issue, petitioner claims that she is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong. Petitioner employed
fraud, the reason why Elizabeth parted with her ring worth P73,000.00. Obviously,
such mitigating circumstance has no place here.

SAGUIGUIT vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 144054

FACTS:
The facts of the case show that accused herein, Nieves A. Saguiguit, was
charged with several Informations for the violation of the Bouncing Checks Law.
Subsequently, the accused was convicted and this was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals.
Hence this appeal assailing the legislative intent of the law and praying for
the abandonment of the ruling that a mere issuance of a check which is
subsequently dishonored makes the issuer liable for violation of the same,
regardless of the intent of the parties.

ISSUE:
Whether or not this court has the power to delve into the policy or wisdom of a
statute, i.e., B.P. Blg. 22

HELD:
No. Under the doctrine of separation of powers, it cannot do matters of legislative
wisdom, as these are within the domain of Congress. Even with the best of motives, the
Court can only interpret and apply the law and cannot, despite doubts about its wisdom,
amend or repeal it. Courts of justice have no right to encroach on the prerogative of
lawmakers, as long as it has not been shown that they have acted with grave abuse of
discretion.
Thus, this Court affirms the petitioner’s conviction.

JOSEF vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 146424

FACTS:
From June to August 1991, the petitioner (a manufacturer) purchased materials from
respondent (a seller of leather goods), for which the former issued a total of 26 postdated
checks against his account with the Associated Bank and Far East Bank & Trust
Company. However, when said checks were presented for encashment, they were
dishonored for the reason “Account Closed.”
Thereafter, respondent informed petitioner of the incident and demanded payment of
their value. They negotiated and petitioner drew a new set of postdated checks. These
were later dishonored likewise. Thus, private respondent was prompted to file a criminal
complaint against petitioner for the violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the court erred in convicting the accused for the violation of B.P.
Blg. 22 and in not considering good faith as a valid defense

HELD:
No. The elements of B.P. Blg. 22 are: (1) the making, drawing and issuing of any
check to apply on account or for value; (2) 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 the check in full upon its presentment; and that there be (3)
the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
credit, without any valid cause, ordered thebank to stop payment.
 In the present case, all these elements were present. Thus, the lower court did
not err in their ruling.
Moreover, the defense of good faith is immaterial in this case. The offense in
question is one of malum prohibitum. The graveman of the offense is the issueance of
a bad check and therefore, whether or not malice and intent attended such is
unimportant.

ARCEO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 142641

FACTS:
The facts show that on 14 March 1991, petitioner obtained a loan from private
complainant, Josefino Cenizal, totaling to of Php 150,000. Subsequently, petitioner
issued in favor of Cenizal, BPI Check No. 163255, postdated 04 August 1991 for Php
150,000.
However, when the check matured, it was not immediately encashed as a verbal
promise was made by petitioner that he would replace the check with cash. Such
promise was made seven times. Eventually, respondent’s patience ran out and he
brought the check to BPI for encashment. However, it bounced due to insufficient
funds. Cenizal then sent a demand letter, but petitioner still failed to settle the
obligation. Thus, resorting to the courts. However, the dishonored checks and slip were
not presented during trial as they were lost by Cenizal due to a fire that occurred near
his residence, and instead executed an affidavit of loss of the same.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the court erred in convicting petitioner for the violation of B.P. Blg.
22 considering that the prosecution failed to present the dishonored check during trial
and notice requirement not having been complied with

HELD:
Petitioner’s contention have no merit. Petitioner’s insistence on the presentation
of the check in evidence as a condition sine qua non for conviction under BP 22 is
wrong. Petitioner anchors his argument on the concept of “the best evidence rule.”
However, the rule applies only where the content of the document is the subject of the
inquiry. Where the issue is the execution or existence of the document or the
circumstances surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and
testimonial evidence is admissible. The gravamen of the offense is the act of drawing
and issuing a worthless check. Hence, the subject of the inquiry is the fact of issuance
or execution of the check, not its content.
Moreover, contrary to petitioner’s claim, the trial court found that Cenizal’s
counsel had informed petitioner in writing of the check’s dishonor and demanded
payment of the value of the check. Despite receipt of the notice of dishonor and
demand for payment, petitioner still failed to pay the amount of the check.
Thus, the issues being settled and the elements found under the first paragraph
of B.P. Blg. 22 having been met, the decision of the lower court is affirmed.

SANTOS vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 161877

FACTS:
The facts of the case show that on 11 March 1993 and 15 June 1993, accused
Ariel C. Santos, then a Labor Arbiter, while in the performance of his quasi-judicial
functions, took advantage of his position, and committed an offense in relation to his
office, by unlawfully ancausing undue injury to Conrado L. Tiu, the owner of the Plaza
Hotel/Apartments through: despite the pendency of the motion for reconsideration of
his Order, as well as the motion to quash writ of execution, issued first a writ of
execution followed by an alias writ of execution, without acting on the said motions and
oppositions anymore, and which resulted to the undue injury cause to Conrado L. Tiu
while giving unwarranted benefit and advantage to Abraham Mose.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the court erred in finding the accused guilty of manifest partiality
in issuing the writs of execution subject of the information

HELD:
The petition is without merit. Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 ppunishes the act
subject herein. In Jacinto vs. Sandiganbayan, the Court enumerated the essential
elements of the crime punishable under the aforequoted statutory provision, to wit: (1)
the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official
functions; (2) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
inexcusable negligence; and (3) that his action caused any undue injury to any party,
including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage
or preference in the discharge of his functions.
As may be noted, what contextually is punishable is the act of causing any undue
injury to any party, or the giving to any private party of unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of the public officer’s functions.
In the instant case, it is clearly evident in the acts of Santos that he had
exercised manifest partiality or bias on Abraham Mose in impetuously issuing the two
writs of execution, thus, causing damage and injury, which are not merely negligible to
Plaza Hotel/Apartments. Thus, the Court, being in agreement with the findings of the
Sandiganbayan, affirms the decision under review in toto and denies the petition for
lack of merit.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. Nos. 153952-71

FACTS:
The facts show that sometime in 30 June 1998, accused herein Barrera,
Edquibin and Escala, all public officers and while in the performance of their official
functions and duties as such, thru manifest partiality and/or evident bad faith, unlawfuly
and in conspiracy with one another, prevent several persons, all legitimate lessee-
stallholder, from exercising their contractual and/or proprietary rights to transfer to,
occupy and/or operate their respective stalls at the public market under the subsisting
lease contract, without any valid or justifiable reason whatsoever, by means of
issuance and implementation of the patently unlawful Memorandum No. 1, thereby
causing undue injury to complainants.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the court committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating the
assailed decision as it never expressed clearly and distinctly the facts and the
evidence on which it is based, in violation of Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution

HELD:
The petition is without merit. The assailed decision of the Sandiganbayan shows
that said judgment actually contained a summary of the antecedent facts and
proceedings; as well as the discussion on the relevant statutory provisions, the
elements of the offense charged, and the testimonial and documentary evidence
presented by the People.
The factual and legal basis of the assailed decision is grounded on Section 3 (e)
of R.A. No. 3019, which provides that in addition to acts and omissions already
penalized by existing laws, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public
officer: x x x x (e) causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or
giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. x x x x
Thus, there being no grave abuse of discretion, the petition is hereby dismissed.

CHANG vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 165111
FACTS:
Sometime in 19 June 1991, the accused Roberto Estanislao Chang, a public
officer, while in the performance of his official duties as the Municipal Treasurer of
Makati, found Group Developer’s Inc. to be owing the municipality tax liabilities in the
amount of Php 494,000, and conspiring and confederating with Pacifico Domingo San
Mateo and Edgar Leoncito Feraren, who are both public officials, unlawfully demand
the amount of Php 125,000 from the said corporation through Mario Magat, an
employee of the said, in consideration of the issuance of a Certificate of Examination
that it had “no tax liability” to the municipality of Makati, which he in fact issued to the
said corporation, notwithstanding the facts that the latter has not paid the said tax
liability.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the elements of the offense under Section 3 (b) of R.A. No. 3019
have been proven beyond reasonable dout

HELD:
The petition fails. Peligrino v. People restates the elements of the above-quoted
offense as summed up in Mejia v. Pamaran, to wit: (1) the offender is a public officer
(2) who requested or received a gift, a present, a share, a percentage, or a benefit (3)
on behalf of the offender or any other person (4) in connection with a contract or
transaction with the government (5) in which the public officer, in an official capacity
under the law, has the right to intervene.
From a review of the records of the case, this Court finds that all the above-
stated elements were satisfactorily established by the prosecution. Petitioners were
undisputedly public officers at the time of the commission of the offense. The
prosecution not only established creditably how the offense charged was committed, it
established just as creditably how petitioners conspired to commit the crime.
Thus, the petition is denied and the assailed decision is affirmed.

* * * END * * *