G.R. No. 197849 - RAFFY BRODETH AND ROLAN B. ONAL, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ABRAHAM G. VILLEGAS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the MeTC ordered petitioners to pay a fine of P200,000.00 for each check that was issued, totaling P400,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. They were likewise ordered to pay Vill Integrated P283,600.00 as civil indemnity, and the costs of suit. [14] On 29 July 2008, petitioners timely filed a notice of appeal, and the case was forwarded to the Regional Trial Court for further proceedings. [15] The RTC Ruling After the parties had submitted their respective memoranda, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27 of Manila (RTC), in Criminal Case Nos. 08-264256-57, found no reversible error in the MeTC's decision and affirmed it in toto . [16] The RTC's disposition is as follows: On the first issue, the [c]ourt finds that the lower court has jurisidiction over the cases. The Affidavit-Complaint of Abraham G. Villegas (Exh. "J"), Operations Manager of Vill Integrated states that the checks were issued in Manila. Paragraph 9 of the said complaint affidavit, which was admitted as part of the testimony of Mr. Villegas states: 9. Despite the receipt of the said letters, the above-named principal officers, Rolan B. Onal, Noli de la Cerna and Raffy Brodeth ignored our letters in refusing to pay not only their account of P1,078,238.24 but also refused to redeem the two (2) checks dated August 31, 1999 and September 5, 1999, to our detriment and prejudice, which checks were issued on said dates in Manila , so we were forced to again refer the matter to our lawyer, Atty. Romualdo M. Jubay, who sent new demand letters to the said persons dated Octber 15, 2000 and October 27, 2000, xerox copies of which letters are hereto attached and marked as Annexes "P" and "Q." (emphasis in the original) A case for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 can be filed either at the place where the ckeck was issued or paid. In the instant case, as already stated, the checks were issued in Manila. Anent the second issue, accused-appellants insisted that the fact that the prosecution did not present a bank personnel to attest to the fact of dishonor of the checks created doubt as to the authenticity and genuineness for the reason therefor, as stamped at the back of the checks. This is misplaced. In order to hold [...] liable for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, aside from the fact of dishonor, it must also be established beyond reasonable doubt that he knew the fact and reason for the dishonor of the check. In the instant case, the original checks were presented in court. Accused were notified through a demand letter of the dishonor of the checks. The defense conceded receipt of the notice of dishonor. Accused-appellants redeemed one of the checks but failed to redeem the two other checks. This sufficed to make them fall within the ambit of the law. On the third issue, accused-appellants posit that they cannot be held liable of the issuance of the subject checks because they issued them in good faith, and as requested by private complainant to ensure payment of the obl