NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS NOTES

BASED ON AGBAYANI’S BOOK AND ATTY. MERCADO’S LECTURES

Page 182 of 190

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D BATCH 2010

presented to the drawee bank for payment within a period of 90 days

ELEMENTS OF OFFENSE DEFINED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 1: BP 22 1. That a person makes or draws and issues any check. 2. That the check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account or for value. 3. That the person who makes or draws and issues the check knows at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds 4. In or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment. 5. That the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawee, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment. For the first act, the petitioner averred that the first element is not present for he didn’t issue the checks for value or for account. This was established by the trial and appellate courts to be false and unsupported by evidence. 184 NAGRAMPA V. PEOPLE

386 SCRA 412

FACTS: The sales manager of Fedcor brought into the plant Nagrampa in order for the latter to purchase an excavation machine. He made a downpayment and for the balance, he issued a postdated check. The checks were drawn against Security Bank. Upon the guarantee of the salesman, the equipment was delivered. However, when the checks were presented for payment, they were dishonored on the ground that the account against which it is drawn has long been closed. The company notified petitioner but it still failed to make payments. This prompted the company to file a case for estafa and violation of BP22 against Nagrampa. The trial court and appellate court both found him guilty. HELD: Petitioner admitted the issuance of the two checks but he would like to argue that the same had been presented more than the 90-day period stated in the law. This is to no avail though since the 90-day period is for the presumption of knowledge to arise. It is not an essential element of the offenses committed within the purview of BP22.

In this case, the checks were presented within 6 months from the issuance of the checks and wouldn’t therefore have been considered stale had petitioner’s account had been existing. Although the presumption of knowledge didn’t arise, such knowledge was sufficiently proven during the trial upon the testimony of one of the bank’s employees. Likewise, for estafa, it is the same. All the elements were present. It was the allegation however of accused that there was no damage done against the company. He even averred that there was a return of the equipment. Nonetheless, damage contemplated in estafa may consist in the offended party being deprived of his money or property as a result of the defraudation, disturbance in property rights, or temporary prejudice. In this case, the deprivation of property was apparent. The backhoe was delivered precisely to the accused because of his downpayment and the issuance of the checks. 185 TY V. PEOPLE

439 SCRA 220

FACTS: Ty’s mother was confined in Manila Doctors. As the daughter, she signed the acknowledgement of responsibility for payment. Her sister was also subsequently confined in the same hospital. She then drew promissory notes, promising to pay her obligations to the hospital. She issued 7 checks and these were thereafter deposited on their due dates. But these checks were dishonored for the account against which they were drawn against had been closed. The hospital then sent demand letters but to no avail. This prompted it to file a complaint for 7 counts of violations of BP22. HELD: Ty doesn’t deny to have issued the checks in issue. She claims that the issuance was under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury or in avoidance of a greater evil or injury. It seems that all the factual findings are not disputed except for the allegation of uncontrollable fear or injury. Nonetheless, this is insufficient to exempt the accused of her liabilities. For uncontrollable fear or injury to become an exempting circumstance—

1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear 2. The fear must be real and imminent 3. The fear of injury is greater than or at least equal to that

committed