Lani and Josie were best friends engaged in jewelry business. One time, they went to the house of Myrna where Josie told Myrna that Lani wanted her checks en-cashed. Josie said that Lani is her best friend and a good payer. On the basis of this assurance, Myrna agreed to en-cash the three checks issued To Myrna: EB Check No. 237936 in the amount of P40,000 postdated September 30, 1992; EB Check No.237941 in the amount of P16,200; and BPI Check No. 656602 in the amount of P40,000 postdated November 18, 1992.
When Myrna presented the checks for payment to the drawee bank, they were all dishonored. The EB checks were "drawn against insufficient funds" while the BPI check was "stamped account closed".
As Myrna did not know Lani’s address, she immediately informed Josie about the dishonored checks. Josie told Myrna not to worry and repeated her assurance that Lani is her best friend and good payer. Myrna tried to get the address of Lani from Josie but the latter refused and instead made assurance that she will inform Lani about the dishonored checks.
When no payment was forthcoming, Myrna lodged a complaint for violation of B.P. 22 against Lani before City Prosecutor which in turn filed three Informations for the three bounced checks before Regional Trial Court.
Lani denied the accusations. She admitted having issued said checks but claimed that she merely delivered the checks to her friend Josie for "show money" to a jeweler. It was understood that the checks were not to be en-cashed or deposited because she admitted that when she issued them she knew she had no funds in the bank as she had only P1,000 in her account with EB while her account with BPI was already closed. So she said she was aware that the checks would be dishonored when presented for payment. Besides, she was not given any notice of dishonor by Myrna. After trial however, the lower court nevertheless convicted her of three counts of violation of the Bouncing Checks Law and sentenced to imprisonment of one year for each count and to pay the amount of the checks to Myrna. Was the trial court correct?
Yes. Lani admitted having issued the three dishonored checks for value. She also admitted that at the time she issued the checks, she was aware that she had only P1,000 in her account with EB while her BPI account was already closed. What BP 22 penalizes is the issuance of a bouncing check. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes, but the act of making or issuing a check that is dishonored upon presentment for payment knowing fully well that he had no funds to cover it. The purpose for which the check was issued and the terms and conditions relating to its issuance is immaterial. What is primordial is that the issued checks were worthless and the fact of their worthlessness was known to the issuer as in this case. The lack of notice of dishonor is not fatal because Lani already admitted that she knew of the insufficiency of her funds in the bank. Myrna had no reason to be suspicious of Lani. Josie assured her that Lani is her best friend and a good payer. Naturally when the check bounced Myrna would turn to Josie. Josie even refused to give Myrna, Lani’s address but promised only to inform Lani about the dishonored check. So Myrna need not give notice of dishonor of the check to Lani to hold the latter liable for violation of BP 22. All the elements of said violation are already present in this case (Yulo vs. People, G.R. 142762, March 4, 2005, 452 SCRA 705).