8/12/2019 Lim v. CA 1995

1/3

LIM v. CA (1995)

Parties to the case: Manuel Lim and Rosita Lim (Petitioners)

Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines (Respondents)

Nature of the case: Criminal case

Facts:

Spouses Manuel and Rosita Lim (Spouses Lim president and treasurer respectively of Rigi Bilt

Industries, Inc. which has been transacting business with LINTON) were charged with 3 counts

of Estafa and 7 counts of violation of the Bouncing Checks Law/BP 22 for allegedly conspiring

together, purchased goods (100 pieces of mild steel plates worth Php51,815; 65 pieces of mild

steel plates worth P63,455; 2,600 Z purlins worth P241,800) from Linton Commercial

Company, Inc. (LINTON), and with deceit issued seven (7) Consolidated Bank and Trust

Company (SOLIDBANK) checks simultaneously with the delivery therefor. When presented toSOLIDBANK for payment the checks were dishonored for insufficiency of funds to cover the

amounts and despite repeated notice and demand, Spouses Lim failed and refused to pay the

checks or the value of the goods. Testimonies from William Yu Bin (Vpres and Sales Manager

of LINTON) and Salvador Alfonso (signature verifier of SOLIDBANK) further strengthened the

fact that the account did not have sufficient funds. Manuel admitted to having issued seven (7)

checks however still denied that Rigi Bilts account had insufficient funds to cover the amounts

of the presenting the bank ledger showing a balance of P65,752.75. Furthermore, he claimed

that he ordered SOLIDBANK to stop payment because the supplies delivered by LINTON were

not in accordance with the specifications in the purchase orders.

Trial Court held Spouses Lim guilty of Estafa and violation of BP 22.CA acquitted Spouses Lim of Estafa because the checks were not made in payment of an

obligation contracted at the time of the issuance. However, CA affirmed guilt of violation of BP

22.

Issue/s: Whether the prosecution failed to prove that any of the essential elements of the crime

punishable under B.P. Blg. 22 was committed within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court

of Malabon.

Held/Ratio:

NO. The essential element in violating BP 22 of knowingly issuing a worthless check is fulfilled.Section 1, par. 1, of BP 22 punishes "[a]ny 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, which 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 . . ." Given that Spouses Lim had

8/12/2019 Lim v. CA 1995

2/3

knowledge of the insufficiency of their funds in SOLIDBANK at the time their checks were

issued, then they clearly violated the aforementioned Section in BP 22.

Under Sec. 191, NIL the term issue means the first delivery of the instrument complete in

form to a person who takes it as a holder. A holder, however, refers to the payee or indorsee

of a bill or note who is in possession of it or the bearer therof. In the present case, the checks

were actually issued and delivered to LINTON in Balut, Navotas but the receipt of LINTON sCollector (received checks from Spouses Lim) of the checks is not what is contemplated as he

was not the person who could take the checks as holder and neither can the Collector be

considered an agent of LINTON for he was a mere employee.

In addition, Spouses Lim did not overcome the prima facie evidence set down in Sec. 2, BP 22

(The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the bank

because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90)

days from the date of the check, shall beprima facie evidence of knowledge of such

insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the

amount due thereon, or makes arrangement for payment in full by the drawee of such checkwithin five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the

drawee.) and they also did not make arrangements to pay SOLIDBANK within five (5) days

after receiving notices that the checks had not been paid.

CA decision AFFIRMED.

______________

FACTS:Spouses Lim were charged with estafa and violations of BP22 for allegedly

purchasing goods from Linton Commercial Corporation and issuing checks

as payment thereof. The checks when presented to the bank were

dishonored for insufficiency of funds or the payment for the checks has

been stopped.

HELD:

It is settled that venue in criminal cases is a vital ingredient of jurisdiction.

It shall be where the crime or offense was committed or any one of the

essential ingredients thereof took place. In determining the proper venue

for these cases, the following are material factsthe checks were issued at

the place of business of Linton; they were delivered to Linton at the same

place; they were dishonored in Kalookan City; petitioners had knowledge of

the insufficiency of funds in their account.

Under Section 191 of the NIL, issue means the first delivery of the

instrument complete in its form to a person who takes it as holder. The

8/12/2019 Lim v. CA 1995

3/3

term holder on the other hand refers to the payee or indorsee of a bill or

note who is in possession of it or the bearer thereof. The important place

to consider in the consummation of a negotiable instrument is the place of

delivery. Delivery is the final act essential to its consummation as an

obligation.