ORIEL MAGNO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents; G.R. No. 96132 June 26, 1992

CUE: accused acquitted of BP 22 for deceitful means of financer of warranty deposit

TOPIC: Malum prohibitum as exception to the requirement of mens rea

CRIME: 4 counts of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22

Accused: petitioner ORIEL MAGNO

FACTS:

3 checks - P5,038.43

1 check - P10,076.87

1. Oriel Magno, lacking fund in acquiring complete set of equipment to make his car repair shop operational, approached Corazon Teng, Vice President of Mancor Industries.

2. VP Teng referred Magno to LS Finance and Management Corporation, advising its Vice President, Joey Gomez, that Mancor was willing to supply the pieces of equipment needed if LS Finance could accommodate Magno and and provide him credit facilities.

3. The arrangement went on requiring Magno to pay 30% of the total amount of the equipment as warranty deposit but Magno couldn't afford to pay so he requested VP Gomez to look for third party who could lend him that amount.

4. Without Magno's knowledge, Corazon was the one who provided that amount.

5. As payment to the equipment, Magno issued six checks, two of them were cleared and the rest had no sufficient fund.

6. Because of the unsuccessful venture, Magno failed to pay LS Finance which then pulled out the equipment.

7. Magno was charged of violation of BP Blg. 22 for (4 counts) which checks are in the possession of Corazon.

ISSUE:

W/N CA's decision finding Magno guilty of 4 counts of BP 22 be affirmed.

RULING:

NO. The CA failed to look into the case further and merely relied on BP 22's nature, being mala prohibita. 

Mrs. Teng's act of hiding the fact that she was the one who sourced the needed funds for the "warranty deposit." Thus, her modus operandi unfolded: as the supplier of the equipment in the name of her corporation, Mancor, would be able to "sell or lease" its goods as in this case, and at the same time, privately financing those who desperately need petty accommodations as this one. 

BP 22 was devised to safeguard the interest of the banking system and the legitimate public checking account user. It did not intend to shelter or favor nor encourage users of the system to enrich themselves through manipulations and circumvention of the noble purpose and objective of the law.

In the present case, the accused Magno issued the checks to compensate for his accommodation and not to cover the receipt of an actual "account or credit for value" as this was absent. 

CA also discarded the presumption of innocence if there is reasonable doubt. How could Magno produce documents showing that the warranty deposit has already been taken back by Mrs. Teng when she is an officer of Mancor which has interest in the transaction, besides being personally interested in the profit of her side-line. Thus, even if she may have gotten back the value of the accommodation, she would still pursue collecting from the petitioner since she had in her possession the checks that "bounced".

Magno also intimated the element 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 is vital conduit of the transaction, Joey Gomez, to whom petitioner was introduced by Mrs. Teng. It would have been different if this predicament was not communicated to all the parties he dealt with regarding the lease agreement the financing of which was covered by L.S. Finance Management.

SC Ruling:

Appealed decision is REVERSED and the accused-petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged.