PACIFICO B. ARCEO, JR., petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Facts:
On March 14, 1991, petitioner, obtained a loan from private complainant Josefino Cenizal in the
amount of 1!!,!!!.!!. "everal #ee$s thereafter, %petitioner& obtained an additional loan of '!,!!!.!! from
Cenizal %etitioner& then issued in favor of Cenizal, (an$ of the hilippine )slands %*()+& Chec$ ,o. 1-./'',
postdated 0u1ust 4, 1991, for 1'!,!!!.!!, at Cenizal2s house located at 3! ana4 0venue, 5uezon Cit4.
6hen 0u1ust 4, 1991 came Cenizal did not deposit the chec$ immediatel4 because %petitioner& promised that
he #ould replace the chec$ #ith cash. "uch promise #as made verball4 seven *3+ times. 6hen his patience ran
out, Cenizal brou1ht the chec$ to the ban$ for encashment. 7he head office of the (an$ of the hilippine
)slands throu1h a letter dated 8ecember ', 1991, informed Ceniza that the chec$ bounced because of
insufficient funds.
7hereafter, Cenizal #ent to the house of %petitioner& to inform him of the dishonor of the chec$ but
Cenizal found out that %petitioner& had left the place. "o, Cenizal referred the matter to a la#4er #ho #rote a
letter 1ivin1 %petitioner& three da4s from receipt thereof to pa4 the amount of the chec$.%etitioner still failed to
ma$e 1ood the amount of the chec$. 0s a conse9uence, Cenizal e:ecuted on Januar4 /!, 199/ before the office
of the Cit4 rosecutor of 5uezon Cit4 his affidavit and submitted documents in support of his complaint for
%e&stafa and %v&iolation of %( //& a1ainst %petitioner&. 0fter due investi1ation, this case for %v&iolation of %(
//& #as filed a1ainst petitioner on March /3, 199/. 7he chec$ in 9uestion and the return slip #ere ho#ever
lost b4 %Cenizal& as a result of a fire that occurred near his residence on "eptember 1-, 199/. Cenizal e:ecuted
an 0ffidavit of ;oss re1ardin1 the loss of the chec$ in 9uestion and the return slip.
0fter trial, petitioner #as found 1uilt4 as char1ed. the appellate court affirmed the trial court2s
decision in toto. etitioner claims that the trial and appellate courts erred in convictin1 him despite the failure
of the prosecution to present the dishonored chec$ durin1 the trial.
)ssue: 6hether or not the trial and appellate courts erred in convictin1 him despite the failure of the
prosecution to present the dishonored chec$ durin1 the trial.
<eld:etitioner2s insistence on the presentation of the chec$ in evidence as a condition sine qua non for
conviction under ( // is #ron1. etitioner anchors his ar1ument on =ule 1.!, "ection ., of the =ules of
Court, other#ise $no#n as the best evidence rule. <o#ever, the rule applies onl4 #here the content of the
document is the sub>ect of the in9uir4. 6here the issue is the e:ecution or e:istence of the document or the
circumstances surroundin1 its e:ecution, the best evidence rule does not appl4 and testimonial evidence is
admissible.
7he 1ravamen of the offense is the act of dra#in1 and issuin1 a #orthless chec$. <ence, the sub>ect of the
in9uir4 is the fact of issuance or e:ecution of the chec$, not its content.
<ere, the due e:ecution and e:istence of the chec$ #ere sufficientl4 established. Cenizal testified that he
presented the ori1inals of the chec$, the return slip and other pertinent documents before the Office of the Cit4
rosecutor of 5uezon Cit4 #hen he e:ecuted his complaint?affidavit durin1 the preliminar4 investi1ation. 7he
Cit4 rosecutor found a prima facie case a1ainst petitioner for violation of ( // and filed the correspondin1
information based on the documents. 0lthou1h the chec$ and the return slip #ere amon1 the documents lost b4
Cenizal in a fire that occurred near his residence on "eptember 1-, 199/, he #as nevertheless able to
ade9uatel4 establish the due e:ecution, e:istence and loss of the chec$ and the return slip in an affidavit of loss
as #ell as in his testimon4 durin1 the trial of the case.
Moreover, petitioner himself admited that he issued the chec$. <e never denied that the chec$ #as presented
for pa4ment to the dra#ee ban$ and #as dishonored for havin1 been dra#n a1ainst.