BP Blg. 22 criminal case vis-a-vis SEC order of suspension of payments; accused acquitted.

"x x x.

We find the appeal to be meritorious.

The elements of a violation of B.P. 22 are the following:15

1) making, drawing and issuing any check to apply on account or for
value;
2) knowledge of the maker, drawer or issuer that at the time of issue
he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and
3) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor of the check for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to
stop payment.

x x x.

However, what the CA failed to consider was that the facts of Tiong were not on all fours with those of the present case and must be put in the
proper context. In Tiong, the presentment for payment and the dishonor of the checks took place before the Petition for Suspension of Payments for Rehabilitation Purposes was filed with the SEC. There was already an obligation to pay the amount covered by the checks. The criminal action for the violations of B.P. 22 was filed for failure to meet this obligation. The
criminal proceedings were already underway when the SEC issued an Omnibus Order creating a Management Committee and consequently
suspending all actions for claims against the debtor therein. Thus, in Tiong, this Court took pains to differentiate the criminal action, the civil liability and the administrative proceedings involved. 

In contrast, it is clear that prior to the presentment for payment and the
subsequent demand letters to petitioner, there was already a lawful Order
from the SEC suspending all payments of claims. It was incumbent on him
to follow that SEC Order. He was able to sufficiently establish that the
accounts were closed pursuant to the Order, without which a different set of
circumstances might have dictated his liability for those checks.

Considering that there was a lawful Order from the SEC, the contract
is deemed suspended. When a contract is suspended, it temporarily ceases to be operative; and it again becomes operative when a condition occurs - or a
situation arises - warranting the termination of the suspension of the
contract. 18

In other words, the SEC Order also created a suspensive condition.
When a contract is subject to a suspensive condition, its birth takes place or
its effectivity commences only if and when the event that constitutes the
condition happens or is fulfilled. 19 Thus, at the time private respondent
presented the September and October 1997 checks for encashment, it had no
right to do so, as there was yet no obligation due from petitioner.

Moreover, it is a basic principle in criminal law that any ambiguity in
the interpretation or application of the law must be made in favor of the
accused. Surely, our laws should not be interpreted in such a way that the
interpretation would result in the disobedience of a lawful order of an
authority vested by law with the jurisdiction to issue the order .

Consequently, because there was a suspension of GSMC's
obligations, petitioner may not be held liable for the civil obligations of the
corporation covered by the bank checks at the time this case arose. However,
it must be emphasized that her non-liability should not prejudice the right of
El Grande to pursue its claim through remedies available to it, subject to the
SEC proceedings regarding the application for corporate rehabilitation.

x x x."

See:

NARI K. GIDWANI
- versus -
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 195064
Jan. 15, 2014