Arceo Jr. vs People of the Philippines 495 SCRA 204. July 17, 2006

Facts:

                Pacifico Arceo obtained a loan amounting to P100,000 from private complainant Josefino Cenizal. Several weeks thereafter, he obtained an additional loan of P50,000 then issued in favor of Cenizal, BPI Check, postdated August 4, 1991, for P150,000. When August 4 came, Cenizal did not deposit the check immediately because Arceo promised that he would replace the check with cash. Such promise was made verbally seven times. When his patience ran out, Cenizal brought the check to the bank for encashment, however, the check bounced because of insufficient funds.

                Thereafter, Cenizal went to the house of Arceo but found out that he had left the place. So Cenizal referred the matter to a lawyer who wrote a letter giving Arceo three days from receipt thereof to pay the amount of check. Arceo still failed to make good the amount of the check. As a consequence, Cenizal executed on January 20, 1992 his affidavit and submitted documents in support of his complaint for estafa and violation of BP 22 agaisnt Arceo. The check in question and the return slip were however lost by Ceniza as a result of a fire that occurred near his residence. He executed an Affidavit of Loss.

                After trial, petitioner was found guilty as charged. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto.

Issue:

1.       Whether or not petitioner should not be held for the dishonor of the check.

2.       Whether or not petitioner was deprived of the period of five banking days from receipt of notice of dishonor within which to pay the amount of check.

3.       Whether or not the presentation of the check in evidence is a condition is a condition for conviction under BP 22.

Ruling:

1.       No.

The Court ruled that the 90-day period provided in the law is not an element of the offense. Neither does it discharge petitioner from his duty to maintain sufficient funds in the account within a reasonable time from the date indicated  in  the  check.  According  to  current  banking  practice,  the  reasonable  period  within  which  to present a check to the drawee bank is six months. Thereafter, the check becomes stale and the drawer is discharged from liability thereon to the extent of the loss caused by the delay.

                Thus, Cenizals presentment of the check to the drawee bank 120 days (four months) after its issue was still within the allowable period.  Petitioner  was  freed  neither  from  the  obligation  to  keep  sufficient  funds  in  his  account  nor  from liability resulting from the dishonor of the check.

2.       No.

Petitioner cannot claim that he was deprived of the period of five banking days from receipt of notice of dishonor within which to pay the amount of the check. While petitioner may have been given only three days to pay the value of the check, the trial court found that the amount due thereon remained unpaid even after five banking days from his receipt of the notice of dishonor.  This  negated  his  claim  that  he  had  already  paid Cenizal and  should  therefore  be  relieved  of  any liability.

Moreover,  petitioners  claim  of  payment  was  nothing  more  than  a  mere  allegation.  He presented no proof to support it. If indeed there was payment, petitioner should have redeemed or taken the check back in the ordinary course of business. Instead,  the  check  remained  in  the  possession  of  the  payee  who  demanded  the  satisfaction  of  petitioners obligation when the check became due as well as when the check was dishonored by the drawee bank. 

3.       No.

Petitioner’s insistence on the presentation of the check in evidence as a condition sine qua non for conviction under BP 22 is wrong. Rule 130, Section 3, of the Rules of Court, otherwise known as the best evidence rule, applies only where the content of the document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is the execution or existence of the document or the circumstances surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.

The fact in issue is the act of drawing and issuing a worthless check. Hence, the subject of the inquiry is the fact of issuance or execution of the check, not its content. Although the check and the return slip were among the documents lost, Cenizal was nevertheless able to adequately establish the due execution, existence and loss of the check and the return slip in an affidavit of loss as well as in his testimony during the trial of the case.

Moreover, Arceo himself admitted that he issued the check. He never denied that the check was presented for payment to the drawee bank and was dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds.