FACTS:
The petitioner, Erlinda San Mateo, purchased assorted yarns from ITSP International, Incorporated in May and July 2005. She issued 11 postdated checks as partial payment, but whenever a check matured, San Mateo would request the vice-president of ITSP, Ravin Sehwani, not to deposit the checks due to insufficient funds. Sehwani agreed to her requests, but San Mateo failed to settle her account.
On October 6, 2005, Sehwani deposited one of the checks, but it was dishonored due to insufficient funds. San Mateo offered to replace the dishonored check with a manager's check, but she failed to do so. On November 7, 2005, Sehwani deposited another check, but San Mateo placed a stop payment order. Despite attempts to contact San Mateo and demand payment, she did not respond.
Sehwani's counsel sent a demand letter to San Mateo's residence, but it was not accepted by the security guard. They also sent a copy of the demand letter by registered mail, which was returned unclaimed by San Mateo. As a result, San Mateo was charged with violation of B.P. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) and found guilty on 10 counts by the Metropolitan Trial Court. She appealed to the Regional Trial Court, which affirmed her conviction, and then to the Court of Appeals, which also affirmed the decision.
San Mateo filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, questioning her conviction based on various issues raised. The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the elements for violation of B.P. 22 had not been sufficiently proven.
ISSUES:
-
Whether or not the subject checks were issued for valuable consideration.
-
Whether or not the demand letter sent by Sehwani constituted the notice of dishonor required under B.P. 22.
-
Whether or not the penalty of imprisonment is proper.
RULING:
- The Court granted the petition and set aside the previous decisions of the lower courts.
PRINCIPLES:
- The remedy of appeal through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court contemplates only errors of law.