FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 213470. December 1, 2014.]
ELVIRA I. ALIVIO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated December 1, 2014 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 213470 (ELVIRA I. ALIVIO, petitioner versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent). — The motion of the Public Attorney's Office to withdraw its appearance, with conformity, praying that pending appearance of petitioner's counsel, all writs, notices, resolutions and decisions of the Court be sent directly to petitioner at Blk. 40 A/B, Lot 20, Phase 2, Area 4, Longos, Malabon City, is NOTED and GRANTED.
This is a petition for review on certiorarivia Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which assails the Decision 1 and Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals dated 23 January 2013 and 9 July 2014, respectively, affirming the rulings of the Regional Trial Court 3 (RTC) and Metropolitan Trial Court 4 (MeTC) which convicted petitioner Elvira I. Alivio (Alivio) for two (2) counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. Blg. 22) for issuing two (2) bounced checks.
Two sets of Information for two counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 were filed against Alivio for the issuance of two checks, namely: (1) Banco Filipino Check No. 0153254 in the amount of P1,321,500.00 and (2) Real Bank Check No. 0051621 in the amount of P10,600.00.
As found by the lower courts, the checks represented the total amount of Alivio's loan from complainant Leticia Magboo (Magboo) and several other borrowers whom Alivio referred to Magboo. As the number of borrowers grew and Magboo could not possibly collect from all the borrowers, Alivio issued the Banco Filipino check as security, which bears only the signature of Alivio. It was a blank check. As agreed upon, the blank Banco Filipino check was to cover whatever balance the other borrowers would not pay. ASEcHI
When the 2 checks fell due, upon presentment, the banks dishonored the checks due to "CLOSED ACCOUNTS."
During arraignment, Alivio pleaded not guilty. After trial, the MeTC found Alivio guilty of two counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22, which was affirmed by the RTC and the Court of Appeals. The lower courts found that all the elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 are present.
Alivio alleged that because the checks given to Magboo were in blank, the same were incomplete instruments under the Negotiable Instruments Law and thus, were nonnegotiable.
Hence, this petition.
OUR RULING
As uniformly found by the lower courts, all the elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 are present:
1. a person makes or draws and issues a check to apply on account or for value;
2. the person who makes or draws and issues the check knows at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the full payment of the check upon its presentment; and
3. the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment. 5
In the case at bar, the prosecution has duly established that (1) Alivio issued and delivered the checks in favor of Magboo; (2) Alivio has knowledge that at the time of issue of the checks, she does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the full payment of the checks upon its presentment based on her receipt of the notice of dishonor and demand letter from Magboo, which she failed to make good even after receipt thereof; (3) and receipt of dishonor from the drawee banks for insufficiency of funds.
With regard to the negotiability of blank checks, the Court of Appeals correctly held that "when blank checks were delivered to private complainant [Magboo], she became a holder with primafacie authority to fill the blanks." This is based on Section 14 of the Negotiable Instruments Law:
Where the instrument is wanting in any material particular, the person in possession thereof has a primafacie authority to complete it by filling up the blanks therein. And a signature on a blank paper delivered by the person making the signature in order that the paper may be converted into a negotiable instrument operates as a primafacie authority to fill it up as such for any amount x x x. [Emphasis supplied]
Therefore, as the checks were delivered by Alivio to Magboo, making Magboo the lawful possessor of the checks having primafacie authority to fill up the checks, it is upon Alivio to discharge the burden of proof of Magboo's want of authority or his having exceeded such authority, 6 which Alivio failed to prove.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. ITAaHc
SOORDERED." BERSAMIN, J., on official leave; REYES, J., acting member per S.O. No. 1892 dated November 28, 2014.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion with Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso, and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 39-47.
2.Id. at 49-50.
3. Penned by Presiding Judge Francisco G. Mendiola; id. at 88-91.
4. Penned by Presiding Judge Catherine P. Manodon; id. at 64-74.
5.Tan v. Mende, Jr., 432 Phil. 760, 769 (2002).
6.Ching v. Nicdao, 550 Phil. 477, 519 (2007).