One of the three checks issued by Jimmy in the course of his negotiation for the settlement of his account with Equitable Card Network Inc. (ECN) was Far East Bank and Trust Co. (FEBTC) Check No. 369403 dated May 12, 1993 issued in favor of ECN. He issued the check on April 7, 1993 as a sign of good faith and by way of commitment to amortize his outstanding obligation up to August 1993 pending reconciliation of alleged inconsistencies in his billings. According to Jimmy it was not intended to be en-cashed but only as gesture of his sincerity to pay his obligations. In fact, on April 17, 1993 he paid ECN P100,000 cash. But when his proposal was rejected by management, ECN did not return the check to him. Instead, ECN tried to en-cash the check and when it was presented for payment on its due date at FEBTC it was also dishonored for the reason "account closed."
When he failed to redeem or make good said check upon notice and demand, ECN filed the complaint for violation of B.P. 22 against him before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). In the Information filed by the prosecutor, the check involved was described as FEBTC Check No. 369403 dated May 12, 1993 in the amount of P100,000 payable to Equitable Banking Corporation. At the trial, the prosecution marked as exhibit "B," FEBTC Check No. 369403 dated May 12, 1993 in the amount of P100,000 payable to Equitable Card Network Inc. Since the check marked exhibit "B" was dishonored and Jimmy failed to redeem it despite notice and demand, the MTC found Jimmy guilty of violating B.P. 22 and ordered him to indemnify ECN the sum of P100,000. Was the MTC correct in finding Jimmy guilty of violating B.P. 22?
No. The Information described the check as payable to Equitable Banking Corporation. The check which bounced and marked as Exhibit "B" is payable to Equitable Card Network Inc. The variance in the identity of the check nullifies Jimmy’s conviction. The identity of the check enters into the first element of the offense under section 1 of B.P. 22 – that a person draws or issues a check on account or for value. There being discrepancy in the identity of the checks describe in the information and that presented in court, Jimmy’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the offense charged will be violated if his conviction is upheld. Jimmy is charged in the information for making or drawing a check payable to Equitable Banking Corporation. But the check he issued was payable to Equitable Card Network Inc. This variance shows the lack of the first element in the violation of B.P. 22, i.e. that a person makes, draws or issues a check on account or for value (Dico vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 141669, February 28, 2005, 452 SCRA 441).