ASG Law

Tag: Prima Facie Evidence

  • Bouncing Checks and Due Process: Why Notice of Dishonor is Crucial in BP 22 Cases

    No Notice, No Conviction: The Critical Role of Due Process in Bouncing Check Cases

    In cases involving bouncing checks, simply issuing a check that bounces isn’t enough for a conviction under Philippine law. A crucial element is proving that the issuer was properly notified that their check was dishonored and given a chance to make amends. This Supreme Court case underscores the importance of this ‘notice of dishonor’ as a cornerstone of due process in B.P. 22 violations, protecting individuals from unjust convictions when proper notification is lacking.

    nn

    G.R. No. 140665, November 13, 2000

    nn

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine facing criminal charges for a bounced check, even if you weren’t properly informed it had bounced. This is the unsettling reality highlighted in Victor Ting

  • Bouncing Checks and Corporate Liability: When is a Signatory Responsible?

    Personal Liability for Corporate Checks: The Importance of Knowledge in B.P. 22 Cases

    G.R. No. 119178, June 20, 1997

    Imagine a scenario: you’re a junior officer at a company, and part of your job involves signing checks. You sign them in blank, trusting that others will fill in the details and ensure sufficient funds. Then, you find yourself facing criminal charges because those checks bounced. This is the unsettling reality explored in Lina Lim Lao v. Court of Appeals, a Philippine Supreme Court case that clarifies the boundaries of liability under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22), also known as the Bouncing Checks Law.

    This case delves into the crucial question of whether an employee can be held criminally liable for issuing unfunded checks when they lack actual knowledge of the insufficiency of funds. It underscores the principle that, even in strict liability offenses, knowledge remains a key factor in determining culpability. Understanding this distinction is vital for anyone involved in corporate finance or check issuance.

    The Legal Landscape of B.P. 22: Knowledge and Notice are Key

    B.P. 22 aims to deter the issuance of worthless checks, fostering confidence in the Philippine financial system. However, it’s not a blanket law that punishes anyone remotely connected to a bounced check. The law specifically targets those who knowingly issue checks without sufficient funds.

    The core provisions of B.P. 22 state:

    “SECTION 1. Checks without sufficient funds. — Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing 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…shall be punished…”

    “SECTION 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. — The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds…shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds…”

    Section 2 establishes a prima facie presumption of knowledge, meaning that the act of issuing a bounced check creates an initial assumption that the issuer knew about the lack of funds. However, this presumption is rebuttable. The accused can present evidence to prove they lacked such knowledge.

    Previous cases, like People vs. Laggui, have outlined the elements of the offense, emphasizing the requirement of knowledge. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was aware of the insufficiency of funds at the time of issuance. If the accused can demonstrate a lack of such awareness, they cannot be held liable under B.P. 22.

    The Case of Lina Lim Lao: A Story of Corporate Procedure and Unjust Accusation

    Lina Lim Lao was a junior officer at Premiere Investment House, working in its Binondo branch. Her duties included co-signing checks, a seemingly innocuous task that would soon turn her life upside down. Due to her frequent absences from the office for fieldwork, it was standard practice for her to sign checks in blank, leaving the payee’s name, amount, and date to be filled in later by her superior, Teodulo Asprec.

    These checks were issued to Father Artelijo Palijo, a provincial treasurer of the Society of the Divine Word, as payment for investments he made with Premiere. When the checks were presented for encashment, they were dishonored due to insufficient funds. Father Palijo filed a complaint against both Lao and Asprec for violation of B.P. 22.

    The case followed this procedural path:

    • A complaint was filed against Lao and Asprec.
    • The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Lao in two counts but acquitted her in one.
    • Lao appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC’s decision.
    • Lao then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

    At trial, Lao argued she lacked knowledge of the insufficiency of funds and did not receive personal notice of the dishonor. The prosecution argued that as a signatory, she was presumed to know the state of the company’s account. The Court of Appeals sided with the prosecution, stating that lack of knowledge was not a valid defense.

    The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court emphasized the importance of proving knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt, stating:

    “Although the offense charged is a malum prohibitum, the prosecution is not thereby excused from its responsibility of proving beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense, one of which is knowledge of the insufficiency of funds.”

    The Court also highlighted the lack of personal notice to Lao, noting that the notice of dishonor was sent to the corporation’s main office, not to her directly. “Because no notice of dishonor was actually sent to and received by the petitioner, the prima facie presumption that she knew about the insufficiency of funds cannot apply,” the Court stated.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and acquitted Lina Lim Lao.

    Practical Implications: Protecting Yourself from Corporate Liability

    This case provides crucial lessons for individuals in positions of corporate responsibility, particularly those involved in signing checks or other financial instruments. It underscores the importance of understanding the scope of one’s duties and the need for clear communication within an organization.

    The ruling in Lina Lim Lao highlights the following:

    • Knowledge is Key: Even in strict liability offenses like B.P. 22, the prosecution must prove the accused had knowledge of the illegal act.
    • Rebuttable Presumption: The prima facie presumption of knowledge can be challenged with evidence.
    • Personal Notice: For the presumption of knowledge to apply, the accused must receive personal notice of the check’s dishonor.

    Key Lessons:

    • Clearly define roles and responsibilities within your organization, especially regarding financial matters.
    • Implement procedures to ensure signatories are informed about the availability of funds before issuing checks.
    • Ensure that notices of dishonor are promptly and personally delivered to all relevant parties.
    • If you are signing checks, know your company’s financial position.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What is B.P. 22?

    A: B.P. 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, is a Philippine law that penalizes the issuance of checks without sufficient funds.

    Q: What are the elements of a B.P. 22 violation?

    A: The elements are: (1) making, drawing, and issuing a check; (2) knowledge of insufficient funds at the time of issue; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check.

    Q: What does “prima facie evidence” mean?

    A: It means that certain facts, if proven, create an initial presumption that another fact is true. However, this presumption can be rebutted with evidence to the contrary.

    Q: What if I sign a check as part of my job but don’t know if there are sufficient funds?

    A: You may not be held liable under B.P. 22 if you can prove you lacked knowledge of the insufficiency of funds and that it was not part of your responsibility to monitor the account balance.

    Q: What should I do if I receive a notice of dishonor for a check I signed?

    A: Immediately contact the payee and the bank to understand the reason for the dishonor. Take steps to cover the amount due within five banking days to avoid criminal prosecution.

    Q: Is it enough for the corporation to receive the notice of dishonor?

    A: No. The person who signed the check must receive personal notice of dishonor for the presumption of knowledge to apply.

    ASG Law specializes in criminal defense and corporate compliance. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Understanding the Anti-Fencing Law in the Philippines: Knowledge and Presumptions

    The Anti-Fencing Law: Possession of Stolen Goods Creates a Legal Presumption

    G.R. No. 111343, August 22, 1996

    Imagine finding a great deal on some construction materials, only to later discover they were stolen. In the Philippines, the Anti-Fencing Law makes it a crime to deal in stolen goods, even if you weren’t the original thief. This case, Ernestino P. Dunlao, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, clarifies how the law works, particularly the legal presumption that arises from possessing stolen items.

    The case revolved around Ernestino Dunlao, Sr., a scrap metal dealer, who was found in possession of farrowing crates and G.I. pipes stolen from Lourdes Farms. The key legal question was whether Dunlao could overcome the presumption that he was a “fence” – someone who knowingly deals in stolen property.

    Legal Context: Defining Fencing and Its Presumptions

    Presidential Decree No. 1612, also known as the Anti-Fencing Law, aims to combat the buying, selling, or dealing in stolen goods. The law defines “fencing” as:

    “the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.”

    A crucial aspect of the law is the presumption it creates. Section 5 states:

    “Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.”

    This means that if you’re found with stolen goods, the burden shifts to you to prove you didn’t know they were stolen and didn’t intend to profit from them. This presumption is a powerful tool for law enforcement in prosecuting those involved in the illegal trade of stolen items. For example, if a homeowner discovers their television set at a pawnshop, the pawnshop owner has to prove they didn’t know it was stolen.

    It is important to note the distinction between mala in se and mala prohibita. Crimes mala in se are inherently wrong, like murder or theft, and require proof of criminal intent. Crimes mala prohibita, like fencing, are wrong because a law prohibits them. In these cases, the intent of the offender is immaterial; the act itself is the crime.

    Case Breakdown: Dunlao’s Defense and the Court’s Reasoning

    Here’s how the case unfolded:

    • Lourdes Farms employees, along with police officers, went to Dunlao’s scrap metal yard after receiving information that stolen items were there.
    • They found farrowing crates and G.I. pipes belonging to Lourdes Farms on Dunlao’s property.
    • Dunlao claimed that men in a jeep had unloaded the pipes at his yard, asking to leave them temporarily, but never returned. He said he was merely holding them for safekeeping.
    • The trial court convicted Dunlao, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

    The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that Dunlao failed to overcome the presumption of fencing. The Court highlighted the following points:

    1. Intent to gain is not required for mala prohibita crimes: The Court stated, “When an act is illegal, the intent of the offender is immaterial.”
    2. Mere possession creates a presumption: “The law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen articles by petitioner, as mere possession thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing.”
    3. Dunlao’s explanation was unconvincing: The Court found it suspicious that Dunlao displayed the items in his shop and didn’t verify the identity of the people who left them.

    The Court quoted the trial court’s observation:

    “And when the accused took it upon himself to protect and transfer inside his compound items unloaded by total strangers without any agreement as to how the items would be sold or disposed of nor how soon agreement would be compensated, a rather dubious aura of illegitimacy envelopes and taints the entire transaction.”

    Consider this hypothetical: A person buys a used laptop at a significantly discounted price from an unknown individual. If that laptop is later identified as stolen, the buyer could face charges under the Anti-Fencing Law, even if they claim they didn’t know it was stolen. The burden would be on them to prove their innocence.

    Practical Implications: Protecting Yourself from Fencing Charges

    This case underscores the importance of due diligence when acquiring goods, especially if the price seems too good to be true. Here are some practical tips:

    • Verify the source: Ask for proof of ownership or a receipt from the seller.
    • Be wary of deals that seem too good to be true: A price significantly below market value should raise red flags.
    • Document the transaction: Keep records of the sale, including the seller’s information and a description of the goods.
    • Report suspicious offers: If you suspect someone is trying to sell stolen goods, contact the police.

    Key Lessons:

    • Possession of stolen goods creates a legal presumption of fencing.
    • It is crucial to exercise due diligence when acquiring property to avoid potential legal issues.
    • Ignorance is not always a defense; you must take reasonable steps to ensure the goods you acquire are not stolen.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What is the penalty for fencing in the Philippines?

    A: The penalty depends on the value of the stolen goods. It can range from prision correccional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years) to prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years), along with fines.

    Q: What if I unknowingly bought stolen goods? Am I still liable?

    A: You could still face charges. The burden is on you to prove that you had no knowledge that the goods were stolen and that you acted in good faith.

    Q: How can I prove I didn’t know the goods were stolen?

    A: Evidence of due diligence, such as verifying the seller’s identity, obtaining receipts, and checking the market value of the goods, can help demonstrate your lack of knowledge.

    Q: What should I do if I suspect I’ve purchased stolen goods?

    A: Contact the police immediately and cooperate with their investigation. This can help mitigate potential charges.

    Q: Does the Anti-Fencing Law apply to online transactions?

    A: Yes, the law applies regardless of whether the transaction occurs in person or online.

    Q: What is the difference between theft and fencing?

    A: Theft is the act of stealing property. Fencing is the act of dealing in stolen property, knowing it was stolen.

    Q: Can a business be held liable for fencing if an employee unknowingly purchases stolen goods?

    A: Yes, the business can be held liable if it is proven that the employee was acting within the scope of their employment. Due diligence is extremely important.

    ASG Law specializes in criminal defense and commercial law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Fencing in the Philippines: Knowledge and Presumptions Under the Anti-Fencing Law

    The Importance of Knowledge in Fencing Cases: Rebutting the Presumption of Guilt

    D.M. CONSUNJI, INC., PETITIONER, VS. RAMON S. ESGUERRA, ET AL., G.R. No. 118590, July 30, 1996

    Imagine you’re a business owner who purchases materials from a supplier. Unbeknownst to you, those materials were stolen. Can you be held liable for ‘fencing,’ even if you had no idea they were illegally obtained? This Supreme Court case clarifies the crucial element of knowledge in fencing cases and how the presumption of guilt can be overcome with evidence of good faith.

    INTRODUCTION

    This case revolves around D.M. Consunji, Inc., which experienced systematic pilferage of company properties. These stolen materials were then sold to hardware stores owned by Eduardo Ching and the Spouses Say. The central legal question is whether Ching and the Spouses Say could be prosecuted for violating the Anti-Fencing Law (Presidential Decree 1612), despite claiming they were unaware the goods were stolen. The Supreme Court ultimately addressed whether the dismissal of the complaint against the private respondents was justified.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: UNDERSTANDING THE ANTI-FENCING LAW

    The Anti-Fencing Law (Presidential Decree No. 1612) aims to combat the trafficking of stolen goods. It defines ‘fencing’ as the act of any person who, with intent to gain, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells, or disposes of any item which he knows, or should have known, to have been derived from robbery or theft.

    A key provision of the law, Section 5, states that “[m]ere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.” This means that simply possessing stolen goods creates a presumption that the possessor is a fence, shifting the burden of proof to the possessor to prove their innocence.

    However, the prosecution must still prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew or should have known that the goods were stolen. This element of knowledge is crucial. The Supreme Court in Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People outlined the elements of fencing:

    • A crime of robbery or theft has been committed.
    • The accused, not a principal or accomplice in the crime, buys, receives, possesses, etc., the stolen item.
    • The accused knows or should have known the item was derived from robbery or theft.
    • The accused has intent to gain.

    A person is deemed to know a fact if they are aware of its existence or have it within their mind’s grasp. The phrase “should know” implies a reasonable person would ascertain the fact in performing their duty. This case highlights that the presumption of fencing can be rebutted with evidence showing a lack of knowledge or reasonable suspicion that the goods were stolen.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: THE FACTS AND THE COURT’S REASONING

    Here’s a chronological breakdown of the events:

    1. D.M. Consunji, Inc. discovers internal pilferage of company properties.
    2. The stolen materials are sold to MC Industrial Sales (owned by Ching) and Seato Trading Company, Inc. (owned by the Spouses Say).
    3. The NBI conducts searches of the premises of Ching and the Spouses Say, seizing phenolic plywood.
    4. The NBI files complaints against Ching and the Spouses Say for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law.
    5. The Investigating Prosecutor recommends dismissal of the case, finding no probable cause to believe that Ching and the Spouses Say knew the plywood was stolen.
    6. The Undersecretary of Justice upholds the dismissal.
    7. D.M. Consunji, Inc. files a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the public respondents. The Court emphasized that the private respondents presented sales receipts covering their purchases, disputing the prima facie presumption of fencing. The court cited the Investigating Prosecutor’s findings:

    “When SEATO TRADING bought the said marine plywoods from EDUARDO CHING, there is no doubt that the Spouses SAY were buying legitimate goods. They never had any suspicious (sic), even the slightest suspicion, that those marine plywoods were allegedly the subject of thievery…”

    Additionally, the Court noted that Ching claimed to have purchased the plywood from agents of Paramount Industrial, a known hardware store, and that his purchases were covered by receipts. The Spouses Say also claimed to have bought the plywood from MC Industrial Sales, a registered business establishment licensed to sell construction materials, with receipts to prove the transaction. The Supreme Court concluded that these receipts provided a reasonable basis to believe the transactions were legitimate, thus negating the element of knowledge required for a fencing conviction.

    “Absent other evidence, the presumption of innocence remains. Thus, grave abuse of discretion cannot be successfully imputed upon public respondents.”

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: WHAT THIS MEANS FOR BUSINESSES

    This case underscores the importance of due diligence in business transactions. While mere possession of stolen goods creates a presumption of fencing, this presumption can be overcome by presenting evidence of good faith and lack of knowledge that the goods were stolen. For business owners, this means keeping accurate records of purchases, verifying the legitimacy of suppliers, and documenting all transactions.

    Key Lessons:

    • Document Everything: Always obtain and keep receipts for all purchases.
    • Know Your Suppliers: Verify that your suppliers are legitimate and licensed businesses.
    • Be Aware: If something seems too good to be true, it probably is. Investigate any suspicious circumstances.

    For prosecutors, this case emphasizes the need to prove the element of knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt in fencing cases. Mere possession is not enough; there must be evidence that the accused knew or should have known that the goods were stolen.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

    Q: What is fencing under Philippine law?

    A: Fencing is the act of buying, receiving, possessing, or dealing in any item that the person knows or should have known was derived from robbery or theft, with the intent to gain.

    Q: What is the penalty for fencing?

    A: The penalty for fencing is dependent on the value of the property involved and is generally equivalent to the penalty prescribed for robbery or theft of the same property.

    Q: What does “prima facie evidence of fencing” mean?

    A: It means that the mere possession of stolen goods creates a presumption that the possessor is a fence. However, this presumption can be rebutted with evidence to the contrary.

    Q: What kind of evidence can rebut the presumption of fencing?

    A: Evidence such as sales receipts, proof of legitimate business operations, and testimony showing a lack of knowledge or reasonable suspicion that the goods were stolen can rebut the presumption.

    Q: What is the role of the prosecutor in a fencing case?

    A: The prosecutor must establish probable cause and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew or should have known that the goods were stolen.

    Q: Can a person be convicted of fencing even if they didn’t directly steal the goods?

    A: Yes, fencing applies to individuals who buy, receive, or possess stolen goods, even if they were not involved in the actual theft.

    Q: What is the difference between theft and fencing?

    A: Theft is the act of stealing property, while fencing is the act of dealing in stolen property. They are distinct but related offenses.

    Q: Is it enough to have receipts to prove that I am not a fence?

    A: While receipts are strong evidence, the court will consider the totality of evidence to determine your guilt or innocence. Keeping accurate records and verifying suppliers are important.

    ASG Law specializes in criminal defense and commercial litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.