Case Digest: Alonto vs. People, G.R. No. 140078, December 9, 2004
Rule 115: Rights of the Accused | Criminal Procedure
Right to be Informed of the Nature and Cause of the Accusation
Facts:
Angelina Zabala Alonto was found guilty of three (3) counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22) or the "Bouncing Checks Law,"
The charges against the petitioner stemmed from three separate incidents where she issued checks to Violeta E. Tizon, knowing that she did not have sufficient funds in her account to cover the checks. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges, and the prosecution presented two witnesses: Violeta E. Tizon and Fernando Sardes.
Tizon testified that the petitioner purchased jewelry from her and issued a check as partial payment, but the check was dishonored due to "account closed."
The petitioner issued three more checks to Tizon, all of which were also dishonored due to "account closed."
The petitioner claimed that she issued the checks upon the advice of her lawyer and relied on assurances from Flordeliz Bernardo that the checks would be funded.
Issue:
WON the Court of Appeals erred in considering the list of jewelry items which petitioner received from the private complainant and the three (3) BPI checks issued by the petitioner, without the requisite evidence of their authenticity and genuineness pursuant to Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
Held: YES.
This Court notes, however, that under the third count, the information alleged that petitioner issued a check dated May 14, 1992 whereas the documentary evidence presented and duly marked as Exhibit "I" was BPI Check No. 831258 in the amount of P25,000 dated April 5, 1992.
Prosecution witness Fernando Sardes confirmed petitioner's issuance of the three BPI checks (Exhibits G, H, and I), but categorically stated that the third check (BPI Check No. 831258) was dated May 14, 1992, which was contrary to that testified to by private complainant Violeta Tizon, i.e., BPI check No. 831258 dated April 5, 1992.
In view of this variance, the conviction of petitioner on the third count cannot be sustained. It is on this ground that petitioner's fourth assignment of error is tenable, in that the prosecution's exhibit, i.e., Exhibit "I" (BPI Check No. 831258 dated April 5, 1992 in the amount of P25,000) is excluded by the law and the rules on evidence.
Since the identity of the check enters into the first essential element of the offense under Section 1 of B.P. 22, that is, that a person makes, draws or issues a check on account or for value, and the date thereof involves its second element, namely, that at the time of issue the maker, drawer or issuer knew that he or she did not have sufficient funds to cover the same, there is a violation of petitioner's constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the offense charged in view of the aforesaid variance, thereby rendering the conviction for the third count fatally defective
Comments
Post a Comment