View full case

AMADA RESTERIO v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

The petitioner in this case was charged with violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for issuing a check with insufficient funds. The petitioner argued that she should not be held liable because she was not the actual owner of the check and that it was issued as collateral for a loan. However, the court held that the law punished the act of issuing a worthless check and did not consider the ownership or intention behind it. The court emphasized that the law aimed to prevent the practice of issuing checks with insufficient funds, as it could harm the community and public interest. The court also noted that knowledge of the check issuer's insufficient funds or credit can be established through a written notice of dishonor, and the law creates a presumption of knowledge in such cases. Ultimately, the court concluded that the state had proven the elements of the offense and rejected the petitioner's claim of non-liability.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the prosecution must prove that the written notice of dishonor was sent to the drawer of the dishonored check

  2. Whether or not the mere presentment of the registry return receipts is sufficient to establish the fact that the written notice of dishonor was served on the drawer of the dishonored check

  3. Whether the prosecution proved that the demand letter was sent through registered mail and received by the petitioners.

  4. Whether the verbal notices of dishonor satisfy the requirement of written notices.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the prosecution must prove that the written notice of dishonor was sent to the drawer of the dishonored check. The notice of dishonor may be sent by the offended party or the drawee bank, but it must be in writing. A mere oral notice to pay a dishonored check will not suffice. The lack of a written notice is fatal for the prosecution.

  2. No, the mere presentment of the registry return receipts is not sufficient to establish the fact that the written notice of dishonor was served on the drawer of the dishonored check. In order for the registry return receipts to be considered as clear proof of the giving of the notices of dishonor, they must be accompanied by the authenticating affidavit of the person or persons who actually mailed the written notices of dishonor, or the testimony in court of the mailer or mailers on the fact of mailing.

  3. The prosecution failed to prove that the demand letter was sent through registered mail and received by the petitioners. Merely presenting the demand letter and registry return receipt is insufficient to prove mailing. Receipts for registered letters and return receipts must be properly authenticated to serve as proof of receipt. The burden of proving notice rests upon the party asserting its existence, and in criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. Thus, the presumption that the petitioners knew of the insufficiency of funds in their checks cannot arise.

  4. Verbal notices of dishonor are not effective because written notices are required. While the law does not explicitly state that the notice of dishonor be in writing, it must be explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal if there are insufficient funds. Therefore, the lack of a written notice of dishonor is fatal.

PRINCIPLES:

  • To hold a person liable for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law), the prosecution must prove that the accused knew at the time of issuance of the check that he did not have sufficient funds for its payment. The law creates a prima facie presumption of such knowledge when certain conditions are met.

  • For the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds under B.P. Blg. 22 to arise, the following must be proved by the prosecution: (a) the check is presented within 90 days from the date of the check; (b) the drawer or maker of the check receives notice that the check has not been paid by the drawee; and (c) the drawer or maker of the check fails to pay the amount due or make arrangements for payment within five banking days after receiving notice of dishonor.

  • The giving of a written notice of dishonor is not only necessary to establish the second element of the offense under B.P. Blg. 22, but it also affords the offender due process and an opportunity to avoid criminal prosecution. The notice of dishonor must be actually served on the drawer of the dishonored check.

  • In cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the prosecution must prove that the issuer received a notice of dishonor. The burden of proving notice rests upon the party asserting its existence, and in criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required.

  • Service of notice by mail should be proved by showing that the conditions for valid service through registered mail were complied with.

  • Receipts for registered letters and return receipts must be properly authenticated to serve as proof of receipt.

  • Verbal notices of dishonor are insufficient, and written notices are required. It must be explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal if there are insufficient funds.

  • Penal statutes must be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.

  • The proof of guilt must be beyond reasonable doubt, which means conviction in an unprejudiced mind, not absolute certainty.

  • The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

  • The accused's position is unequal to that of the State, which has unlimited means and usually authoritative and capable counsel.