Haystack: Lazaro vs. Court of Appeals (GR 105461, 11 November 1993)

Lazaro vs. CA
[G.R. No. 105461. November 11, 1993.]
Second Division, Padilla (J): 4 concurring

Facts: On 13 October 1989, Marlyn Lazaro received from Rudy Chua the amount of P90,000 as advance payment for deliveries of sugar, cigarettes and luncheon meat ordered by the latter from Lazaro who is a businesswoman. On 27 October 1989, Lazaro made a partial delivery of the ordered goods worth P18,000. Lazaro was unable to deliver the rest of goods ordered by Chua. Lazaro, as a refund of the amount of P72,000, issued Prudential Bank Check 599175 dated 28 October 1989 for the said amount. On 30 October 1989, Chua deposited by check in his account but the check was dishonored by the bank and stamped "Account Closed." To make up for the dishonor, Lazaro indorsed Trader's Royal Bank Check 393173 issued by a certain Lolita Soriano and payable "to cash". The check which was dated 18 November 1989 was likewise dishonored and marked "Account Closed." Chua then sent a demand latter to Lazaro asking for the payment of the P72,000 covered by the first check within 5 days from receipt of the letter.

For failure of the accused to pay the amount, Chua filed complaints for estafa and violation of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) against Lazaro. On 24 September 1990, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 86, Quezon City rendered a joint decision in Criminal Cases Q-90-13387 and Q-90-13388 finding Lazaro guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of violation of BP 22 and sentencing her to suffer 1 year imprisonment and to indemnify the offended party, Rudy Chua, in the sum of P72,000 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, with the accessories provided for by law’; and acquitting Lazaro for the crime of estafa.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals in a decision dated 31 March 1992 affirmed the trial court decision in toto. A Motion For Reconsideration was denied on 15 May 1992. Hence, the petition for review.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment appealed from in toto, with costs against Lazaro.

1. Que vs. People and People vs. Nitafan; Intent of framers of BP 22
In Que vs. People, the Court stated that the clear intention of the framers of BP 22 is to make the mere act of issuing a worthless check malum prohibitum. In prosecutions for violation of BP 22 therefore, prejudice or damage is not a pre-requisite for conviction. In the more recent case of People vs. Nitafan, the Court ruled that the agreement surrounding the issuance of the checks need not be first looked into, since the law has clearly provided that the mere issuance of any kind of check, regardless of the intent of the parties; i.e., whether the check is intended merely to serve as a guarantee or deposit, but which check is subsequently dishonored, makes the person who issued the check liable. The intent of the law is to curb the proliferation of worthless checks and to protect the stability and integrity of checks as a means of payment of obligations.

2. Alleged conveyance of a car does not justify the cancellation of the indemnity awarded
That the obligation of Marlyn Lazaro to complainant Chua has been extinguished by the conveyance by the former of her car to Chua does not also justify the cancellation of the indemnity awarded. It should be noted that BP 22 provides that a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the dishonored check may be imposed by the court.

3. Esler vs. Ledesma; Fine as a pecuniary punishment imposed upon a person convicted of crime
In the case of Esler vs. Ledesma, the Court stated that a fine is a pecuniary punishment imposed by a lawful tribunal upon a person convicted of a crime. Clearly, the fine provided for in BP 22 was intended as an additional penalty for the act of issuing a worthless check. This is the only logical conclusion since the law does not require that there be damage or prejudice to the individual complainant by reason of the issuance of the worthless check.

	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.