Matsuura v. People

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 226827. August 9, 2017.]

YOSHITSUGU MATSUURA, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated August 9, 2017, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 226827 (Yoshitsugu Matsuura vs. People of the Philippines). — The Court NOTES the Office of the Solicitor General's comment on the petition for review on certiorari.

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Decision 1 dated November 26, 2015 and Resolution 2 dated August 25, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. C.R. No. 36618 which affirmed intoto the Judgment 3 dated February 8, 2013 and Decision 4 dated May 5, 2014 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) and Regional Trial Court (RTC), respectively. DETACa

Facts:

Makati Sunrise Towers (now T.F. Ventures), through its Chairman, Yoshitsugu Matsuura (Matsuura), and Vice-President and Treasurer, Antonio L. Tan, Jr. (Tan), entered into a Contract to Sell 5 over three (3) parcels of land co-owned by Gloria E. Punzalan (Punzalan) and Luisa Enrile Mallari, for and in consideration of P55,000,000.00. Under the contract, T.F. Ventures agreed to pay Punzalan partly in the form of six (6) condominium units in Makati Sunrise Towers Hotel. 6 However, T.F. Ventures failed to deliver the said units to Punzalan. 7

On December 12, 1996, a Compromise Agreement 8 was executed between T.F. Ventures through its president, Manuel L. Morato (Morato) and Punzalan. Under the agreement, T.F. Ventures bound itself to pay Punzalan the amount of P15,100,000.00, payable in thirteen (13) monthly installments, in full satisfaction of her claim. 9 Thus, T.F. Ventures, through its officers Matsuura and Tan, issued thirteen (13) post-dated checks in favor of Punzalan pursuant to the Compromise Agreement.

As it turned out, some of the checks issued by Matsuura and Tan were dishonored for being drawn against insufficient funds. Demand letters were sent to T.F. Ventures addressed to Morato, Matsuura and Tan. 10 After Matsuura and Tan failed to satisfy T.F. Ventures' outstanding obligations with Punzalan, they were charged before the MeTC of Makati City, Branch 64, with five (5) counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22), docketed as follows:

Criminal Case No.	UCPB Check No.	Amount
228459	AYL 191123	P1,250,000.00
228460	AYL 191124	P1,250,000.00
228461	AYL 191125	P1,250,000.00
228462	AYL 191126	P1,250,000.00
228463	AYL 191127	P1,250,000.00 11

 

Ruling of the MeTC

In its Judgment 12 dated February 8, 2013, the MeTC found Matsuura guilty for violation of B.P. 22 in Criminal Case Nos. 228461 and 228462. However, he was acquitted in Criminal Case Nos. 228459, 228460, and 228463 for failure of the prosecution to establish that Matsuura received the notice of dishonor as required under B.P. 22. Nevertheless, Matsuura was adjudged civilly liable for the amount of the checks involved therein. The fallo of the Judgment reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, [MATSUURA] is hereby:

1. ACQUITTED in Criminal Case Nos. 228459, 228460[,] [and] 228463, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He is however ordered to pay [Punzalan] the value of the three (3) checks in the aggregate amount of Pesos: Three Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand ([P]3,750,000.00) representing the company's outstanding obligation with the private complainant plus legal interest of 6% [perannum] on the aforestated principal amount due from the filing of the [I]nformations until the finality of this decision, and thereafter 12% [perannum] until the principal amount is paid in full.

2. CONVICTED in Criminal Case Nos. 228461 [and] 228462, wherein the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt. He is therefore sentenced to pay FINE of Pesos: Two Hundred Thousand ([P]200,000.00) per count with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. He is likewise adjudged to pay [Punzalan] the amount of Pesos: Two Million Five Hundred ([P]2,500,000.00) representing the amount of checks plus legal interest of 6% percent [perannum] on the aforestated principal amount due from the filing of the informations until the finality of this decision, and thereafter 12% [perannum] until the principal amount is paid in full.

3. Adjudged [to] pay the Costs of suit.

Considering that accused [TAN] is still at-large, let a warrant of arrest be issued and the cases against him be archived until his arrest or voluntary surrender.

SO ORDERED. 13 (Italics supplied)

Unperturbed, Matsuura appealed the aforementioned Judgment with the RTC.

Ruling of the RTC

The RTC affirmed the MeTC ruling in its Decision 14 dated May 5, 2014. It observed that Matsuura himself "admitted that he signed the five checks, subject matter of these cases, in blank. Their issuance and subsequent dishonor by the drawee bank upon presentment had been proved by the presentation and offer of the said checks in [c]ourt." 15

Ruling of the CA

Matsuura elevated the matter to the CA by way of a petition for review 16 under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Court. There, he argued that he should not be held civilly liable for the obligations covered by the subject checks as these debts belong to T.F. Ventures, not to him. 17 He also claimed that he should not be held guilty for violation of B.P. 22 since the Compromise Agreement pursuant to which the checks were issued was already rescinded. 18 In its assailed Decision, 19 dated November 26, 2015, the CA reiterated that all elements constituting a violation of B.P. 22 had been sufficiently proven in this case. It disposed of the case in this manner:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated 5 May 2014 of the Regional Trial Court Branch 56 of Makati City is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.20

The CA also denied Matsuura's motion for reconsideration through its Resolution 21 dated August 25, 2016. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari based on the following arguments:

A.

THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE ADMISSION OF [MATSUURA] OF THE PRESENCE OF HIS SIGNATURE ON [THE] SUBJECT CHECKS BOLSTERS THE PRESUMPTION OF HIS KNOWLEDGE OF HIS AUTHORITY TO SIGN ON BEHALF OF T.F. VENTURES, INC., CONSIDERING THAT THIS RULING IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT. aDSIHc

B.

THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THAT THE ELEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE DRAWER THAT AT THE TIME OF THE [ISSUANCE] OF [THE] SUBJECT CHECKS[,] HE DOES NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT FUNDS IN OR CREDIT WITH THE DRAWEE BANK[,] WAS NOT DULY PROVEN IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

C.

THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THAT THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF [MATSUURA] OVER SUBJECT FIVE (5) CHECKS WAS NOT DULY PROVEN[,] CONSIDERING THAT THE OBLIGATION BELONG[S] TO THE CORPORATION T.F. VENTURES, INC. AND NOT TO [MATSUURA]. 22

Ruling of the Court

To prove that a violation of B.P. 22 has been committed, the prosecution must establish the following essential elements, namely:

(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 there were no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and;

(3) The dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or the dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the drawee bank to stop payment. 23

The presence of the third element which is the fact of dishonor of the checks is undisputed. What Matsuura basically insists is that the prosecution failed to prove the first two elements of the offense charged.

With regard to the first element, Matsuura asserts that his being an authorized co-signatory of checks on behalf of T.F. Ventures is not proof that the subject checks were made, drawn and issued to apply for account or for value. He raises as argument that the Compromise Agreement has been rescinded, so the subject checks were not issued for value. 24

Matsuura's position on this score is clearly erroneous. In Dreamwork Construction, Inc. v. Janiola et al., 25 the Court pronounced that "[i]t must be emphasized that the gravamen of the offense charge[d] is the issuance of a bad check. The purpose for which the check was issued, the terms and conditions relating to its issuance, or any agreement surrounding suchissuance are irrelevant to the prosecution and conviction of petitioner." 26 "The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum." 27 Accordingly, the existence or validity of the Compromise Agreement is immaterial as this case concerns the issuance of bouncing checks punishable under B.P. 22. Moreover, Matsuura himself "admitted that his signatures appeared on the subject checks and there was no evidence presentedthat he was coerced, forced or intimidated to sign those checks." 28 Indubitably, the first element of the offense of violation of B.P. 22 is attendant to this case.

Next, Matsuura points out that the prosecution failed to prove the element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds as it had not established that a notice of dishonor was sent to him personally. 29

While the prosecution has failed to prove that Matsuura received the first demand letter pertaining to (UCPB) Check Nos. AYL191123, and AYL191124, and AYL191127, which led to his acquittal in Criminal Case Nos. 228459, 228460, and 228463, there is evidence of his receipt of the second demand letter involving UCPB Check Nos. AYL191125 and AYL191126. Both the RTC and the CA affirmed the MeTC's finding that Matsuura received a notice of dishonor from Punzalan's counsel. 30 It appears that the notice was received by a certain Amor and Matsuura based on the signatures written on it. As the MeTC aptly found, Matsuura failed to categorically deny that the signature thereon belongs to him. 31 Consequently, there is no merit to his allegation that no notice of dishonor was sent to him.

Anent the issue on Matsuura's civil liability over the five checks he co-signed on behalf of T.F. Ventures, he is partly correct.

As a general rule, "when a corporate officer issues a worthless check in the corporate name, he may be held personally liable for violating a penal statute." 32 This is in accordance with Section 1 of B.P. 22, which states:

Section 1. Checks without sufficient funds.

xxx xxx xxx

Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons, who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.

However, the above rule is not without exception. In Gosiaco v. Ching, 33 the Court refused to hold a corporate officer civilly liable for the value of the checks she signed on behalf of a corporation when she was acquitted of the offense charged. ETHIDa

Similarly, in Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Duque, 34 the Court emphasized that "a corporate officer who issues a bouncing corporate check can only be held civilly liable when he is convicted." Conversely, "it will follow that once acquitted of the offense of violating B.P. 22, a corporate officer is discharged from any civil liability arising from the issuance of the worthless check in the name of the corporation he represents." Following this rule, Matsuura cannot be ordered to pay for the value of the dishonored checks in Criminal Case Nos. 228459, 228460, and 228463, wherein he was acquitted. But his civil liability stands with respect to Criminal Case Nos. 228461 and 228462, wherein his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Lastly, the Court modifies the interest rate provided in the Judgment of the MeTC (with regard to the fine and civil liability imposed on Matsuura relative to his conviction), following Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board Circular No. 799 which provides that the rate of interest is 6% for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and in judgments, in the absence of an express contract as to such rate of interest. 35

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLYGRANTED. The Judgment dated February 8, 2013 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 64, as affirmed in the Decision dated November 26, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.R. No. 36618, is MODIFIED in that:

1. In Criminal Case Nos. 228459, 228460, and 228463, Yoshitsugu Matsuura's civil liability is extinguished; and

2. In Criminal Case Nos. 228461 and 228462, the legal interest is fixed at six percent (6%) perannum of the amount awarded, computed from July 1, 2013 until its full satisfaction.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Franchito N. Diamante concurring; rollo, pp. 29-53.

2.Id. at 62-63.

3. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Dennis J. Rafa; id. at 175-186.

4. Penned by Presiding Judge Bonifacio S. Pascua; id. at 89-94.

5.Id. at 107-118.

6. Amended by a Contract to Sell dated December 11, 1990; id. at 110 and 119.

7.Id. at 32.

8.Id. at 123-124.

9.Id.

10.Id. at 34.

11.Id. at 176.

12.Id. at 175-176.

13.Id. at 185-186.

14.Id. at 89-94.

15.Id. at 92.

16.Id. at 65-85.

17.Id. at 80.

18.Id. at 77.

19.Id. at 29-53.

20.Id. at 53.

21.Id. at 62-63.

22.Id. at 16-19.

23.Restiero v. People, 695 Phil. 693, 701 (2012), citing Ting v. Court of Appeals, 398 Phil. 481, 488 (2000).

24.Rollo, p. 17.

25. 609 Phil. 245 (2009).

26.Id. at 257-258.

27.Dichaves v. Judge Apalit, 388 Phil. 709, 715 (2000).

28.Rollo, p. 93.

29.Id. at 19.

30.Id. at 184.

31.Id.

32.Navarra v. People, G.R. No. 203750, June 6, 2016, 792 SCRA 331, 342.

33. 603 Phil. 457, 465 (2009).

34. G.R. No. 216467, February 15, 2017.

35.See Navarra v. People, supra note 32. See also Nacar v. Gallery Frames, et al., 716 Phil. 267 (2013).