Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=33840:g-r-no-105461-november-11,-1993-marlyn-lazaro-v-court-of-appeals,-et-al&amp;catid=1308&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:52:21+00:00

Document:
MARLYN LAZARO, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS (Eight Division) and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
Dilag, Blanes, Alvaro, Sillano, Jurado, Cudiamat, Piollo and Basar for Petitioner.
The Solicitor General for the People of the Philippines.
1.	CRIMINAL LAW; BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P. 22); MERE ISSUANCE OF WORTHLESS CHECK, PUNISHABLE. — In Que v. People, (G.R. Nos. 75217-18, 21 September 1987, 154 SCRA 161) this Court stated that the clear intention of the framers of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 is to make the mere act of issuing a worthless check malum prohibitum. In prosecutions for violation of BP 22 therefore, prejudice or damage is not a pre-requisite for conviction. In the more recent case of People v. Nitafan, this Court ruled that the agreement surrounding the issuance of the checks need not be first looked into, since the law has clearly provided that the mere issuance of any kind of check, regardless of the intent of the parties; i.e., whether the check is intended merely to serve as a guarantee or deposit, but which check is subsequently dishonored, makes the person who issued the check liable. The intent of the law is to curb the proliferation of worthless checks and to protect the stability and integrity of checks as a means of payment of obligations.
2.	ID.; ID.; FINE; ADDITIONAL PENALTY. — BP 22 provides that a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the dishonored check may be imposed by the court. In the case of Esler v. Ledesma, (G.R. No. L-28638, 21 September 1928, 52 Phil. 114) this Court stated that a fine is a pecuniary punishment imposed by a lawful tribunal upon a person convicted of a crime. Clearly, the fine provided for in BP 22 was intended as an additional penalty for the act of issuing a worthless check. This is the only logical conclusion since the law does not require that there be damage or prejudice to the individual complainant by reason of the issuance of the worthless check.
"WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused, MARLYN LAZARO, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of B.P. 22, and hereby sentences said accused to suffer one (1) year imprisonment and to indemnify the offended party, Rudy Chua, in the sum of SEVENTY TWO THOUSAND (P72,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, with the accessories provided for by law.
For reasons above stated, Accused is acquitted in the charge for the crime of estafa.
"I.	THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS IS CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED IN THE LOWER COURT.
II.	THAT RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO DENY PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS OF LAW (SIC) IN DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT WHICH IS COVERED BY (THE) CHECK IN QUESTION HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID BY PETITIONER WHEN SHE EXECUTED A DEED OF SALE IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT OF HER CAR.
1.	On or about 13 October 1989, herein petitioner Marlyn Lazaro received from complainant Rudy Chua the amount of Ninety Thousand (P90,000.00) Pesos as advance payment for deliveries of sugar, cigarettes and luncheon meat ordered by the latter from Lazaro who is a businesswoman.
2.	On 27 October 1989, petitioner made a partial delivery of the ordered goods worth Eighteen Thousand (P18,000.00) Pesos. Petitioner was unable to deliver the rest of goods ordered by Chua. Petitioner, as a refund of the amount of Seventy-Two Thousand (P72,000.00) Pesos, issued Prudential Bank Check No. 599175 dated 28 October 1989 for the aforementioned amount.
5.	Chua then sent a demand latter to Lazaro asking for the payment of the Seventy-Two Thousand (P72,000.00) Pesos covered by the first check within five (5) days from receipt of the letter.
6.	For failure of the accused to pay the amount, Chua filed complaints for estafa and violation of B.P. 22 against Lazaro.
Petitioner’s argument is without merit. In Que v. People, 4 this Court stated that the clear intention of the framers of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 is to make the mere act of issuing a worthless check malum prohibitum. In prosecutions for violation of BP 22 therefore, prejudice or damage is not a pre-requisite for conviction. In the more recent case of People v. Nitafan, 5 this Court ruled that the agreement surrounding the issuance of the checks need not be first looked into, since the law has clearly provided that the mere issuance of any kind of check, regardless of the intent of the parties; i.e., whether the check is intended merely to serve as a guarantee or deposit, but which check is subsequently dishonored, makes the person who issued the check liable. The intent of the law is to curb the proliferation of worthless checks and to protect the stability and integrity of checks as a means of payment of obligations.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against the petitioner.
*	Penned by Judge Antonio P. Solano.
**	Penned by Associate Justice Quirino D. Abad Santos with the concurrence of Associate Justices Lorna S. Lombos-De la Fuente and Eduardo R. Bengzon.
3.	Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 13.
4.	G.R. Nos. 75217-18, 21 September 1987, 154 SCRA 161.
5.	G.R. No. 75954, 22 October 1992, 215 SCRA 79.
6.	Section 1, BP 22.
7.	G.R. No. L-28638, 21 September 1928, 52 Phil. 114.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.