CRIMINAL LAW 1

CASE DIGEST – No.40 of the syllabus

Palana, petitioner vs. People, respondent
G.R. No. 149995, September 28, 2007

Facts:
 Isidro Pablito Palana with violation of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22 otherwise known
as the Bouncing Checks Law.
 August 19, 1991: Isidro Pablito Palana was charged with the violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg.22 (Bouncing Checks Law)
 On or about September 1987 in the city of Makati, Palana issued a check for Alex B.
Carlos, the private complainant.
 CHECK DETAILS:
o Check No.: 326317PR
o Drawn Against: Asian Savings Bank - Paseo de Roxas Branch
o In the amount of: P590,000.00
o Postdated: February 15, 1988
o Payable to: Dr. Alex B. Carlos
 According to Alex: September 1987, petitioner and his wife borrowed money from him
in the amount of P590,000.00. To secure the payment of the loan, petitioner issued a
postdated check for the same amount in favor of the complainant.
 However, it was later discovered by the complainant that the bank, due to
insufficiency of funds, dishonored the check.
 Despite the notice from the bank: The petitioner still failed to pay the amount
stated in the check and neither made an arrangement with the bank.
o Arguments/defense of the accused: 1) that the complainant was aware of
the insufficiency of the check. ; 2) that the complainant was his business
partner – and that the amount given to him was an investment not loan. ;
3) that the check was issued for the benefit of the complainant - *Since it
was intended to be shown for potential suppliers.

Issue:
(1) WoN petitioner was guilty of violation of B.P. Bilang. 22.
(2) WoN the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the case.

Ruling:
(1) Yes. The petitioner is guilty of violating B.P Blg. 22 or the Anti-Bouncing Check Law
given that all of the elements of the offense penalized under B.P Blg. 22 are present.

Elements: a. the accused makes, draws, or issues any check to apply on account or for
value; b. the accused knows at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in
or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its
presentment; and c. 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 drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.

(2) Yes. The Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the case.