THIRD DIVISION[G.R. No. 119178.June 20, 1997]LINA LIM LAO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS n! PEOPLE OF T"EP"ILIPPINES,respondents.# E C I S I O NPANGANI$AN, J.%May an employee who, as part of her regular duties, signs blan !orporate !he!s "" withthe name of the payee and the amount drawn to be filled later by another signatory "" and,therefore,doessowithout a!tual nowledgeof whethersu!h!he!sare funded, beheld!riminally liable for #iolation of $atas %ambansa $ilang && '$(%( &&), when !he!s so signedaredishonored due to insuffi!ien!yoffunds*Doesanoti!eofdishonorsenttothe mainoffi!e of the !orporation !onstitute a #alid noti!e to the said employee who holds offi!e in aseparate bran!h and who had no a!tual nowledge thereof*In other words, is !onstru!ti#enowledge of the !orporation, but not of the signatory"employee, suffi!ient*Thesearethe+uestionsraisedinthepetitionfiledonMar!h&,, ,--.assailingtheDe!ision/,0 of Respondent 1ourt of 2ppeals/&0 promulgated on De!ember -, ,--3 in 12"4(R(1R No( ,3&35 dismissing the appeal of petitioner and affirming the de!ision dated September&6, ,--5 in 1riminal 1ase Nos( 73"&6-68 to 73"&6-6- of the Regional Trial 1ourt of Manila,$ran!h99(Thedispositi#eportionof thesaidRT1de!isionaffirmedbytherespondentappellate !ourt reads:/90WHEREFORE, after a careful consideration of the evidence presented by the prosecution and that of the defense, the Court renders judgment as follos!"n Criminal Case #o$ %&'()*)* here no evidence as presented by the prosecution notithstanding the fact that there as an agreement that the cases be tried jointly and also the fact that the accused +ina +im +ao as already arraigned, for failure of the prosecution to adduce evidence against the accused, the Court hereby declares her innocent of the crime charged and she is hereby ac,uitted ith cost de oficio$For Criminal Case #o$ %&'()*)-, the Court finds the accused +ina +im +ao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of O#E ./0 1E2R imprisonment and to pay a fine of 3/45,555$55 ithout subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency$For Criminal Case #o$ %&'()*)%, the Court finds the accused +ina +im +ao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of O#E ./0 1E2R imprisonment and to pay a fine of 3/45,555$55 ithout subsidiary imprisonment in case of of .sic0 insolvency$For the to cases the accused is ordered to pay the cost of suit$6he cash bond put up by the accused for her provisional liberty in Criminal Case #o$ %&'()*)* here she is declared ac,uitted is hereby ordered cancelled .sic0$With reference to the accused 6eodulo 2sprec ho has remained at large, in order that the cases as against him may not remain pending in the doc7et for an indefinite period, let the same be archived ithout prejudice to its subse,uent prosecution as soon as said accused is finally apprehended$+et a arrant issue for the arrest of the accused 6eodulo 2sprec hich arrant need not be returned to this Court until the accused is finally arrested$8O OR9ERE9$:T&e F'()Version of the ProsecutionThe fa!ts are not disputed(;e thus lift them from the assailed De!ision, as follows:2ppellant .and no 3etitioner +ina +im +ao0 as a junior officer of 3remiere "nvestment House .3remiere0 in its ;inondo ;ranch$2s such officer, she as authori .92"F0$Father 3alijo immediately made demands on premiere to pay him the necessary amounts$He first ent to the ;inondo ;ranch but as referred to the Cubao =ain ;ranch here he as able to tal7 ith the 3resident, =r$ CariCo$For his efforts, he as paid34,555$55$8ince no other payments folloed, Father 3alijo rote 3remiere a formal letter of demand$8ubse,uently, 3remiere as placed under receivership: .68#, supra, at pp$ /)'/*0$D&EThereafter, on 0, a corporation engaged in investment management, ith principal business office at =iami, Cubao, Hues eAtension office in .;inondo0 =anila$ (Ocampo, T.S.N., 16 August 1990, p. 14)"n the regular course of her duties as a junior officer, she as re,uired to co'sign chec7s dran against the account of the corporation$ 6he other co'signor as her head of office,=r$ 6eodulo 2sprec$8ince part of her duties re,uired her to be mostly in the field and out of the office, it as normal procedure for her to sign the chec7s in blan7, that is, ithout the names of the payees, the amounts and the dates of maturity$"t as li7eise =r$ 2sprec, as head of office, ho alone decided to hom the chec7s ere to be ultimately issued and delivered$(Lao, T.S.N., 28 September 1989, pp. 9-11, 1, 19.)"n signing the chec7s as part of her duties as junior officer of the corporation, petitioner had no 7noledge of the actual funds available in the corporate account$(Lao, T.S.N., 28 September 1989, p. 21)6he poer, duty and responsibility of monitoring and assessing the balances against the chec7s issued, and funding the chec7s thus issued, devolved on the corporation>s 6reasury 9epartment in its main office in Cubao, Hues clients pre'terminated their investments$2 period of eAtreme illi,uidity and financial distress folloed, hich ultimately led to the corporation>s being placed under receivership by the 8ecurities and EAchange Commission$(Ocampo, T.S.N., 16 August 1990, p. 8, 19$ Lao, T.S.N., 28 September 1989, pp. 2--26$ )"ease re0er a"so to 67.*b*t 819, t.e or/er o0 rece*(ers.*p *ssue/ b# t.e Secur*t*es a,/ 67c.a,ge 4omm*ss*o,)9espite the 6reasury 9epartment>s and .=s$ Ocampo>s0 7noledge of the dishonor of the chec7s, hoever, the main office in Cubao, Hueina >im >ao didnot ha#e a!tual nowledge of the insuffi!ien!y of funds in the !orporate a!!ounts at the timesheaffi@edhersignaturetothe!he!sin#ol#edinthis!ase, at thetimethesamewereissued, and e#en at the time the !he!s were subse+uently dishonored by the drawee ban(The s!ope of petitionerFs duties and responsibilities did not en!ompass the funding of the!orporationFs!he!sD herdutieswerelimitedtothemaretingdepartment of the$inondobran!h(/,80 Ander the organiEational stru!ture of %remiere ?inan!ing 1orporation,funding of!he!swasthe sole responsibility of the Treasury Department(Veronilyn O!ampo, formerTreasurer of %remiere,testified thus:H ;ill you please tell us whose 'si!) responsible for the funding of !he!s in %remiere*2 The one in !harge is the Treasury Di#ision up to the Treasury Disbursement and thenthey gi#e it dire!tly to ina >im >ao wasoften out in the field taing !harge of the mareting department of the $inondo bran!h, shesigned the !he!s in blan as to name of the payee and the amount to be drawn, and withoutknowledge of the transaction for which they were issued(/,-0 2s a matter of !ompany pra!ti!e,her signature was re+uired in addition to that ofTeodulo 2spre!, who alone pla!ed the nameof the payee and the amount to be drawn thereon(This is !lear from her testimony:+@ @ @;ill you please or will you be able to tell us the !ondition of this !he! when yousigned this or when you first saw this !he!*;itnessa I signed the !he! in blan(There were no payee(No amount, no date, sir(+ ;hy did you sign this !he! in blan when there was no payee, no amount and no date*a It is in order to fa!ilitate the transa!tion, sir(@ @ @@ @@ @ @ @1OART'to witness)+ Is that your pra!ti!e*;itnessa %ro!edure, Iour Honor(1OARTThat is +uiet 'si!) unusual(That is why I am asing that last +uestion if that is a pra!ti!eof your offi!e(a 2s a !o"signer, I sign first, sir(+ So the !he! !annot be en!ashed without your signature, !o"signature*a Ies, sir(2tty( 4onEales'to witness)+ Now, you said that you sign first, after you sign, who signs the !he!*a Mr( Teodoro 2spre!, sir(+ Is this Teodoro 2spre! the same Teodoro 2spre!, one of the a!!used in all these !ases*a Ies, sir(+ Now, in the distribution or issuan!e of !he!s whi!h a!!ording to you, as a !o"signee,you sign(;ho determines to whom to issue or to whom to pay the !he! after Teodoro2spre! signs the !he!*;itnessa He is the one(2tty( 4onEales+ Mr( 2spre! is the one in"!harge in(((are you telling the Honorable 1ourt that it wasTeodoro 2spre! who determines to whom to issue the !he!*Does he do that all thetime*1ourt+ Does he all the time*'to witness)a Ies, Iour Honor(+ So the !he! !an be negotiated*So, the !he! !an be good only upon hissigning*;ithout his signing or signature the !he! !annot be good*a Ies, Iour Honor(2tty( 4onEales'to witness)+ Iou made referen!e to a transa!tion whi!h a!!ording to you, you signed this !he! inorder to fa!ilitate the transa!tion(( (I withdraw that +uestion(I will reform(1OART'for !larifi!ation to witness);itness may answer(+ Only to fa!ilitate your business transa!tion, so you signed the other !he!s*;itnessa Ies, Iour Honor(+ So that when e#er there is a transa!tion all is needed(((all that is needed is for theother !o"signee to sign*a Ies, Iour Honor(1OART'To !ounsel)%ro!eed(2tty( 4onEales'to witness)+ ;hy is it ne!essary for you to sign*a $e!ause most of the time I am out in the field in the afternoon, so, in order to fa!ilitatethe transa!tion I sign so if I am not around they !an issue the !he!(C/&50%etitioner did not ha#e any nowledge either of the identity of the payee or the transa!tionwhi!h ga#e rise to the issuan!e of the !he!s(It was her !o"signatory, Teodulo 2spre!, whoalone filled in the blans, !ompletedand issued the !he!s(That %etitioner >ina >im >ao didnot ha#eanynowledgeor !onne!tionwiththe!he!sF payee, 2rteli=o%ali=o, is!learlye#ident e#en from the latterFs testimony, vi"(:2TTI( 4ONJ2>KS:H;hendid you !ome to now the a!!used >ina >im >ao*2 I !annot remember the e@a!t date be!ause in their offi!e $inondo, ""1OART:'before witness !ould finish)HMore or less*2 It must ha#e been late ,-79(2TTI( 4ONJ2>KS:H2ndthat must or that wasafter thetransa!tionsin#ol#ingalleged!he!smaredine#iden!e as K@hibits $ and 1*2 2fter the transa!tions(H2nd that was also before the transa!tion in#ol#ing that !onfirmation of sale mared ine#iden!e as K@hibit 2*2 It was also(H2nd so you !ame to now the a!!used >ina >im >ao when all those transa!tions werealready !onsummated*2 Ies, sir(H2nd there has ne#er been any o!!asion where you transa!ted with a!!used >ina >im>ao, is that !orre!t*2 None, sir, there was no o!!asion(H2nd your !oming to now >ina >im >ao the a!!used in these !ases was by !han!e whenyou happened to drop by in the offi!e at $inondo of the %remier ?inan!e 1orporation, isthat what you mean*2 Ies, sir(HIou indi!ated to the 1ourt that you were introdu!ed to the a!!used >ina >im >ao, is that!orre!t*2 I was introdu!ed(@ @ @@ @@ @ @ @H2fter that plainintrodu!tiontherewasnothingwhi!htranspiredbetweenyouandthea!!used >ina >im >ao*2 There was none(C/&,0Sin!e %etitioner >ina >im >ao signed the !he!s without nowledge of the insuffi!ien!y offunds, nowledgeshewasnot e@pe!tedor obligedtopossessunder theorganiEationalstru!tureof the!orporation, shemaynot beheldliableunder $(%(&&( ?or inthefinalanalysis, penal statutessu!has$(%(&&Bmust be!onstruedwithsu!hstri!tnessasto!arefullysafeguardtherights of thedefendant@@ @(C/&&0 Theelement of nowledgeofinsuffi!ien!y of funds ha#ing been pro#en to be absent, petitioner is therefore entitled to ana!+uittal(This position finds support in ingle vs. #ntermediate Appellate Court/&90 where westressed that nowledge of insuffi!ien!y of funds at the time of the issuan!e of the !he! wasan essential re+uisite for the offense penaliEed under $(%( &&(In that !ase, the spouses %aEand Nestor Dingle owned a family business nown as B%MD Knterprises(CNestor transa!tedthe sale of 355 tons of sili!a sand to the buyer Krnesto 2ng who paid for the same( Nestorfailedtodeli#er( Thus, heissuedtoKrnestotwo!he!s, signedbyhimandhiswifeasauthoriEed signatories for %MD Knterprises, to represent the #alue of the undeli#ered sili!asand(These !he!s were dishonored for ha#ing been Bdrawn against insuffi!ientfunds(CNestor thereafter issued to Krnesto another !he!, signed by him and his wife %aE,whi!h was liewise subse+uentlydishonored(Nopayment was e#er madeD hen!e, thespouses were !harged with a #iolation of $(%( && before the trial !ourt whi!h found them bothguilty(%aE appealed the =udgment to the then Intermediate 2ppellate 1ourt whi!h modifiedthe same by redu!ing the penalty of imprisonment to thirty days(Not satisfied, %aE filed anappeal to this 1ourt Binsisting on her inno!en!eC and B!ontending that she did not in!ur any!riminal liability under $(%( && be!ause she had no nowledge of the dishonor of the !he!sissuedbyher husbandand, for that matter, e#enthetransa!tionof her husbandwith2ng(CThe 1ourt ruled in ingle as follows:6he 8olicitor Jeneral in his =emorandum recommended that petitioner be acquitted ofthe instant charge because from the testimony of the sole prosecution itness Ernesto 2ng, it as established that he dealt eAclusively ith #estor 9ingle$#ohere in his testimony is the name of 3a< 9ingle ever mentioned in connection ith the transaction and ith the issuance of the chec7$"n fact, 2ng categorically stated that it as #estor 9ingle ho received his to .(0 letters of demand$6his lends credence to the testimonyof 3a< 9ingle that she signed the ,uestioned chec7s in blan7 together ith her husband ithout any 7noledge of its issuance, much less of the transaction and the fact of dishonor$"n the case of Florentino +oim>aobythedrawee ban based on the unrebutted testimony of O!ampo B't)hat the !he!s boun!ed whenpresented with the drawee ban but she did not inform anymore the $inondo bran!h and >ina>im>aoastherewas noneedtoinformthemasthe !orporationwasindistress(C/&-0 The1ourt of 2ppealsaffirmedthis fa!tual finding(%ursuant topre#ailing=urispruden!e, thisfinding is binding on this 1ourt(/950Indeed, this fa!tual matter is borne by the re!ords(The re!ords show that the noti!e ofdishonorwasaddressedto%remiere?inan!ing1orporationandsent toitsmainoffi!ein1ubao, HueEon 1ity(?urthermore,the same had not been transmitted to %remiereFs$inondo Offi!e where petitioner had been holding offi!e(>iewise no noti!e of dishonor from the offended party was a!tually sent to or re!ei#ed by%etitioner >ao(Her testimony on this point is as follows:2tty( 4onEales+ ;ill you please tell us if ?ather 2rtele=o %ale=o 'si!) e#er notified you of the boun!ing ofthe !he! or the two '&) !he!s mared as K@hibit L$F or L1F for the prose!ution*;itnessa No, sir(+ ;hat do you mean no, sir*a I was ne#er gi#en a noti!e(I was ne#er gi#en noti!e from ?ather %ale=o 'si!)(1OART'to witness)+ Noti!e of what*a Of the boun!ing !he!, Iour Honor(C/9,0$e!ausenonoti!eof dishonor wasa!tuallysent toandre!ei#edbythepetitioner,the prima facie presumption that she new about the insuffi!ien!y of funds !annotapply(Se!tion & of $(%( && !learly pro#ides that this presumption arises not from the merefa!t of drawing, maing and issuing a bum !he!Dthere must also be a showing that, withinfi#e baning daysfrom receipt of the notice of dishonor,su!h maer or drawer failed to paythe holder of the !he! the amount due thereon or to mae arrangement for its payment in fullby the drawee of su!h !he!(It hasbeenobser#edthat theState, underthisstatute, a!tuallyoffersthe#iolator Ba!ompromisebyallowinghimtoperformsomea!t whi!hoperatestopreemptthe!riminala!tion, and if he opts to perform it the a!tion is abated(CThis was also !ompared Bto !ertainlaws/9&0 allowing illegal possessors of firearms a !ertain period of time to surrender the illegallypossessed firearms to the 4o#ernment, without in!urring any !riminal liability(C/990 In this light,the full payment of the amount appearing in the !he! within fi#e baning days from noti!e ofdishonor is a B!omplete defense(C/930 The absen!e of a noti!e of dishonor ne!essarily depri#esan a!!used an opportunity to pre!lude a !riminalprose!ution(2!!ordingly, pro!eduralduepro!ess !learly en=oins that a noti!e of dishonor be a!tually ser#ed on petitioner(%etitionerhasaright to demand""andthebasi!postulatesoffairnessre+uire""thatthenoti!eofdishonor bea!tuallysent toandre!ei#edbyher toaffordher theopportunitytoa#ertprose!ution under $(%( &&(In this light, the postulate of Respondent 1ourt of 2ppeals that B'd)emand on the1orporation !onstitutes demand on appellant 'herein petitioner),C/9.0 is erroneous(%remierehas no obligation to forward the noti!e addressed to it to the employee !on!erned, espe!iallybe!ause the !orporation itself in!urs no !riminal liability under $(%( && for the issuan!e of aboun!ing !he!(Responsibility under $(%( && is personalto the a!!usedD hen!e, personalnowledge of the noti!e of dishonor is ne!essary(1onse+uently, !onstru!ti#e noti!e to the!orporation is not enough to satisfy due pro!ess(Moreo#er, it is petitioner, as an offi!er of the!orporation, who is the latterFs agent for purposes of re!ei#ing noti!es and other do!uments,and not the other way around(It is but a@iomati! that noti!e to the !orporation, whi!h has apersonality distin!t and separate from the petitioner, does not !onstitute noti!e to the latter(E/-,o.ueIn granting this appeal, the 1ourt is not unaware of $(%( &&Fs intent to in!ul!ate publi!respe!t for andtrust in!he!swhi!h, althoughnot legal tender,aredeemed!on#enientsubstitutes for !urren!y($(%( && was intended by the legislature to enhan!e !ommer!ial andfinan!ial transa!tions in the %hilippines by penaliEing maers and issuers of worthless!he!s(The publi! interest behind $(%( && is thus !learly palpable from its intended purpose(/9602t the same time, this 1ourt deeply !herishes and is in fa!t bound by duty to prote!t ourpeopleFs !onstitutional rights to due pro!ess and to be presumed inno!ent until the !ontrary ispro#en(/980 These rights must be read into any interpretation and appli!ation of $(%( &&(Verily,the publi! poli!y to uphold !i#il liberties embodied in the $ill of Rights ne!essarily outweighsthe publi! poli!y to build !onfiden!e in the issuan!e of !he!s(The first is a basi! humanright while the se!ond is only proprietary in nature(/970 Important to remember also is $(%( &&Fsre+uirements that the !he! issuer must now Bat the time of issue that he does not ha#esuffi!ient funds in or !redit with the drawee banC and that he must re!ei#e Bnoti!e that su!h!he! has not been paid by the drawee(CHen!e, $(%( && must not be applied in a mannerwhi!h !ontra#enes an a!!usedFs !onstitutional and statutory rights(Thereisalsoaso!ial =usti!edimensioninthis!ase(>ina>im>aoisonlyaminoremployee who had nothing to do with the issuan!e, funding and deli#ery of !he!s(;hy shewas re+uired by her employer to !ountersign !he!s es!apes us( Her signature is !ompletelyunne!essaryfor it ser#esnofathomablepurposeat all inprote!tingtheemployer fromunauthoriEed disbursements($e!ause of the penden!y of this !ase, >ina >im >ao stood in=eopardy "" for o#er a de!ade "" of losing her liberty and suffering the wren!hing pain andloneliness of imprisonment, not to mention the stigma of prose!ution on her !areer and familylife as a young mother, as well as the e@penses, effort and a!hes in defending herinno!en!e( Apon the other hand, the senior offi!ial "" Teodulo 2spre! "" who appearsresponsiblefor theissuan!e, fundinganddeli#eryof theworthless!he!shases!aped!riminalprose!ution simplybe!ausehe !ouldnotbelo!ated by the authorities(The !aseagainst him has been ar!hi#ed while the awesome prose!utory might of the go#ernment andthe nu!led ireofthe pri#ate !omplainant were allfo!used onpoor petitioner(Thus,this1ourt e@horts the prose!utors and the poli!e authorities !on!erned to e@ert their best to arrestand prose!ute 2spre! so that =usti!e in its pristine essen!e !an be a!hie#ed in all fairness tothe !omplainant, ?r( 2rteli=o %ali=o, and the %eople of the %hilippines($y this De!ision,the1ourt en=oins the Se!retary of o!al 4o#ernment tosee that essential =usti!e is done and the real !ulprit's) duly"prose!uted and punished(0"EREFORE, the+uestionedDe!isionof the1ourt of 2ppealsaffirmingthat of theRegional Trial 1ourt, is hereby$%&%$'% and '%( A'#%(%etitioner >ina >im >aois AC)*#((%(The 1ler of 1ourt is hereby +$%$% to furnish the Se!retary of o!al 4o#ernment with !opies of this De!ision(No !osts(SO OR#ERE#.Narvasa, C.,., -Chairman., avide, ,r., and /elo, ,,., !on!ur.0rancisco, ,., on lea#e(