DELA CRUZ, Airiz M.

JD-4B

PEOPLE vs. SAPLA

Facts:
In 2014, the Kalinga Regional Police Safety Battalion received an anonymous tip made
through their hotline that a man would be transporting marijuana from Kalinga to the
Province of Isabela. The hotline received another text that the man would be on board
a jeepney, plate number indicated.
At Talaca Checkpoint, the police flagged down a jeepney. The Police aproached the
jeepney and saw accussed Jerry Sapla. The Police asked Sapla if he was the owner of
the blue sack in fornt of him, which the latter answered in the affirmative. They
requested Sapla to open the sack where they four (4) bricks of suspected marijuana
leaves. The Police then subsequently arrested Sapla, while the other officers further
searched the accussed.
As defense, accussed denied the charges and claimed that he went to Tabuk to visit a
certian relative. Upon reaching Talaca, police flagged down the jeepney in order to
check their baggages. The police found marijuana inside a sack and were ;ooking for a
person who wore fatigue pants at that time. The police identified him as the owner of
the marijuana found inside the sack. He denied ownership of the sack, but the police
arrested and brought him him to Talaca barracks.

The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, covicted the accused for violating Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165
and rueld that the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish the corpus delicti of the
crime.

Issue:

Whether or not there is a valid searchand seizure conducted by the police officers.

Ruling:
DELA CRUZ, Airiz M.
JD-4B

The Supreme Court finds for the accussed Sapla and orders his release from
incarceration.
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is at the top of the hierarchy of
rights for the right to personal security which, along with the right to privacy, is the
foundation of the right against unreasonable search and seizure.

A search and seizure opereation conducted by the authorities is reasonable only when a
court issues a search warrant after it has determined the existence of probable cause
through the personal examinaton under oath oraffirmation of the complianant and
witnesses presented before the court, with the place to be searched and the persons pr
things to be seized particularly described.

In upholding the warrantless search and seizure, the RTC and the CA considered the
police operation as a valid warrantlesss search of a moving vehicle. However, this kind
of searches are limited to routine checks where the examination of the vehicle is limited
to visual inspection.

Routine inspection do not give the authorities carte blanche discretion to conduct
intrusive warrantless searches in the absence of probable cause. Further, law enforces
cannot act solely on t he basis of confidential or tipped information. A tip is still hearsay
no matter how reliable it may be. It is not sufficient to constitute probable cause in the
absence of any other circumstances that will arouse suspicion. In this case, no overt
physical act could be properly attributed to the accussed as to rouse suspicion in the
minds of the arresting officers.

In the situation presented in this case, it cannot be considered as a asearch of a moving

The Supreme Court ruled that anonymous tips are not valid probable cause to search a
moving vehicle. Search of a moving vehicle is one of the grounds for a reasonable
warrantless searches and seizures.
DELA CRUZ, Airiz M.
JD-4B

ONGKINGCO v. SUGIYAMA
G.R. No. 217787, September 18, 2019
Topic: B.P. 22

Facts:

Respondent Kasuhiro Sugiyama entered into a Contract Agreement with New Rhia Car
Services, Inc. where petitioner Socorro Ongkingco is the President and Chairperson of
the Board of Directors, and petitioner Maria Paz Ongkingco is a Board Director. Under
the Agreement, Sugiyama would receive a monthly in exchange for his investment.

To cover Sugiyama's monthly dividends, petitioners issued six (6) checks. The first
three (3) checks, dated September, October, and November, were good checks, but the
remaining 3 checks bounced for having been draw against insufficient funds.

In October, Socorro again obtained a loan from Sugiyama. As a guarantee and payment
for the said obligation, Socorro issued a Bank Check.

When the check was presented for payment, it was dishonored for having been drawn
against insufficient funds, just like the 3 other checks initially issued by petitioners. A
formal demand letter was delivered to Socorro's office, but no payment was made.
Thus, Sugiyama filed a complaint against petitioners for violation of Batas Pambansa
Bilang (B.P.) 22. Accordingly, four (4) separate Informations were filed against
petitioners.

Petitioners' argued that they cannot be made liable for the value of the dishonored
checks as the same were issued without any consideration begs the question.

The MeTC rendered a decision finding petitioners guilty of four (4) counts of violation of
B.P. 22. The MeTC ruled that the first and third elements of violation of B.P. 22 are
present, namely: the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply on account or
for value, and the subsequent dishonor by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
credit. The MeTC noted that the petitioners admitted the issuance of the said checks to
Sugiyama in consideration of the loan; thus, the subject checks were issued on account
or for value. As regards the second element, MeTC ruled that the demand letter for the
payment of the dishonored checks was received by the secretary of Socorro as shown
by the handwritten signature on the letter. And contrary to petitioners argument, B.P.
22 punishes the mere issuance of a bouncing check, and not the purpose for which the
check was issued or in consideration of the terms and conditions relating to its
issuance.

The RTC and the CA affirmed the said decision.

On appeal, petitioners raised that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that Socorro received the notice of dishonor and also raise for the first time that
the four (4) Informations filed before the MeTC do not bear the approval of the city
prosecutor.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner Socorro and Maria Paz are guilty for violation of B.P. 22

Ruling:

Yes, Socorro is guilty of violation of B.P. 22, but not Maria Paz.

To sustain a conviction of violation of B.P. 22, the prosecution must prove beyond
reasonable doubt three (3) essential elements, namely: 1. The accused makes, draws
or ssues any check to apply to account or for value; 2. The accused knows at the time
of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, drawee
bank for payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and 3. The check is
subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit; or it
would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid
reasons, ordered the bank to stop payment.

The presence of the first and third elements is undisputed. However, while the
prosecution established the second element with respect to petitioner Socorro, it failed
to do so in the case of petitioner Marie Paz.

When service of notice is an issue, the person alleging that notice was served must
prove the fact of service, and the burden of proving notice rests upon the party
asserting its existence. Failure of the prosecution to prove that the person who issued
the check was given the requisite notice of dishonor is a clear ground for acquittal. It
bears emphasis that the giving of the written notice of dishonor does not only supply
proof for the element arising from the presumption of knowledge the law puts up, but
also affords the offender due process.

Further, It is of no moment that the subject checks were issued as a guarantee and
upon the insistence of private complainant Sugiyama. What is significant is that the
accused had deliberately issued the checks in question to cover accounts and those
same checks were dishonored upon presentment, regardless of the purpose for such
issuance. It is, therefore, clear that the real intention of the framers of B.P. 22 is to
make the mere act of issuing a worthless check malum prohibitum and, thus,
punishable under such law.
DELA CRUZ, Airiz M.
JD-4B

As a general rule, when a corporate officer issues a worthless check in the corporate's
name, he or she may be held personally liable for violating a penal statute. However, he
or she can only be held civilly liable when convicted.