7/29/2019 Kenneth Ngo v PP
1/1
Kenneth Ngo V. People of the Philippines
GR no. 155815
July 14 2004
Panganiban J,
Facts:
Three separate Informations were filed before the Regional Trial
Court, Branch15, Davao City against the petitioner charging him
with Violation of Batas PambansaBlg. 22, having the same contents
but different in dates. Petitioner on or aboutOcotober 1988 in the
City of Davao knowing fully well that he had no sufficient fundsin
the drawee bank, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously issued 8
checks in favor ofPaul Gotianse but the last 3 postdated checks
were dishonored when presented. Upondemand and notice of dishonor
the same failed to make payment. Petitioner pleadednot guilty on
all counts of violation of BP 22. On September 3, 1990, the
petitioner
filed a Motion to dismiss which is actually a demurrer to
evidence without prior leaveof Court. When it was denied, the
petitioner was not allowed to present evidence andthe cases were
deemed submitted for decision. Kenneth Ngo was sentencedimprisoned
for eight months and to indemnify Paul Gotianse P75,000.00. The
CAnoted the undisputed fact that three (3) checks issued by
petitioner had beendishonored for payment. According to the
appellate court, instead of presentingevidence, he opted instead to
file a Motion to Dismiss, which the trial court treated asa
Demurrer to Evidence without prior leave of court. Thus, the CA
decided the appealbased on the prosecutions evidence, which stood
unrebutted. The CA ruled that allthe elements of a violation of BP
22 with regard to Criminal Case Nos. 18200-89 and
18201-89 had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.Issue:
Whether or not the evidence conformed to the allegation
contained in theinformation enough to prove elements of the
offense?
Held:
It is fundamental that every element of the offense must be
alleged in thecomplaint or information and proved beyond reasonable
doubt by the prosecution. nthe instant case, we find no reason to
depart from the CAs findings, which petitionerdoes not rebut.
Present are all these elements constituting a violation of BP 22:
a.
Petitioner issued EBC checks in partial settlement of his
obligation to Northern HillDevelopment; b. The checks were
deposited by the complainant but weresubsequently dishonored by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds; c. Petitionerknew that at
the time he issued the postdated checks, he had no sufficient funds
in orcredit with the drawee bank; and he failed to redeem the
checks within five 5 daysfrom written demand by the complainant for
payment. We agree with the submissionof the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) that petitioners argument is immaterialand
irrelevant. This Court has consistently declared that the cause or
reason for theissuance of a check is inconsequential in determining
criminal culpability under BP 22.
