G.R. No. 175851 - EMILIA LIM, VS. MINDANAO WINES & LIQUOR GALLERIA, A SINGLE PROPRIETORSHIP BUSINESS OUTFIT OWNED BY EVELYN S. VALDEVIESO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly endorsed them to Mindanao Wines. Out of these four PNB checks, two were already paid, i.e ., one was collected while the other redeemed in court. [10] With regard to the bounced PNB Check Nos. 951453 and 951454, Nieves claimed that upon her instructions Marcelino went to H & E Commercial more than 10 times to collect their value. But since his efforts were in vain, two demand letters were thus sent to Emilia which were duly received by her as the same were signed by the recipient of the letters. [11] On cross, Nieves admitted that she neither saw Emilia issue the checks nor accompanied Marcelino in delivering the orders to H & E Commercial or in collecting the unpaid checks. [12] Asked about the corresponding sales order covering Sales Invoice No. 1711, she acknowledged that the sales order was unsigned and explained that sales orders of customers are handled by the Credit and Collection Department of Mindanao Wines. [13] After the prosecution rested its case, Emilia filed a Demurrer to Evidence [14] claiming insufficiency of evidence. She asserted that not one of the elements of BP 22 was proven because the witness merely relied upon the reports of the salesman; that the purchases covered by Sales Invoice No. 1711 were unauthorized because the corresponding job order was unsigned; and that it was never established that the bank dishonored the checks or that she was even sent a notice of dishonor. Ruling of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities In its December 10, 1999 Order, [15] the MTCC granted the Demurrer to Evidence. It ruled that while Emilia did issue the checks for value, the prosecution nevertheless miserably failed to prove one essential element that consummates the crime of BP 22, i.e ., the fact of dishonor of the two subject checks. It noted that other than the checks, no bank representative testified about presentment and dishonor. Hence, the MTCC acquitted Emilia of the criminal charges. However, the MTCC still found her civilly liable because when she redeemed one of the checks during the pendency of the criminal cases, the MTCC considered the same as an acknowledgement on her part of her obligation with Mindanao Wines. Pertinent portions of the MTCC Order read: The elements of B.P. Blg. 22 must concur before one can be convicted of this offense. Since one element is wanting, it is believed that the guilt of the accused has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. The Court, however, opines that the accused is civilly liable. There is evidence on record that an account was contracted. She should, therefore, pay. WHEREFORE, the demurrer to evidence is granted and these cases are ordered DISMISSED. Accused, however, is adjudged to pay complainant the total amounts of the 2 checks which is P50,000.00, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to be computed from the date of notice which is November 18, 1996 until the amount is paid in full; to reimburse complainant of the expenses incurred in filing these cases in