G.R. No. 117650 - Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Petitioner Jaime Alferez purchased construction materials from Cebu ABC Sales Commercial.
Payment for the materials was rendered through three checks totaling Php830,998.40.
The checks were dishonored due to being drawn against a closed account.

Petitioner was charged with three counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for issuing bouncing checks.
The case was raffled to Branch 3 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Cebu City with Criminal Case Nos. 40985-R to 40987-R.
During trial, the prosecution relied on a single witness, private complainant Pingping Co.
Documentary evidence submitted by the prosecution included:

Instead of presenting its own evidence, the petitioner filed a Demurrer to Evidence approximately ten months after the prosecution rested its case.
The ground relied upon was that the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner received the notice of dishonor or the demand letter.
On March 4, 2005, the MTCC denied the demurrer and rendered judgment finding the petitioner guilty as charged, sentencing him to pay a fine or, in case of insolvency, suffer subsidiary imprisonment, and to also pay civil liabilities amounting to the check’s face value plus interest.

The petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MTCC decision in toto.
Upon filing a motion for reconsideration, the RTC modified the sentence by imposing imprisonment of six months per count rather than a fine.
The petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.
The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit, sustaining the petitioner’s conviction based on the evidence presented.

The prosecution’s evidence to establish notice of dishonor relied on the demand letter, registry receipt, and return card.
The CA noted that the petitioner did not testify regarding receipt of notice and did not object to the prosecution’s documentary evidence.
The controversy arose regarding whether the unauthenticated registry receipt and return card sufficiently proved that the petitioner received the notice of dishonor.
Additionally, there was an issue on whether the filing of a demurrer to evidence without leave resulted in a waiver of the petitioner’s right to present rebuttal evidence, especially regarding the civil aspect.

Is the presentation of the registry receipt and registry return card, without authenticated evidence of the signature or direct identification of the serving agent, sufficient to establish that the petitioner received the notice of dishonor as required under B.P. Blg. 22?

Does the filing of a Demurrer to Evidence without leave, and its subsequent denial by the trial court, constitute a waiver of the petitioner’s right to present additional evidence in support of his defense, particularly on matters concerning the civil liability aspect?

If the petitioner is found guilty of issuing bouncing checks, should he be penalized solely with a fine as initially imposed by the trial court, or should the penalty of imprisonment (as modified by the RTC) be upheld?