Case Digest (G.R. No. 122353)
Facts:
Evangeline Danao v. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 122353, June 06, 2001, Supreme Court Third Division, Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Evangeline Danao (accused) was charged in two criminal informations (Crim. Case Nos. 92-8385 and 92-8386) dated December 18, 1992 for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law). The informations alleged that petitioner issued two postdated checks which were dishonored for the reason “ACCOUNT CLOSED,” and that she knew at the time of issuance that there were insufficient funds or credit in the account and, despite notice of dishonor, failed to pay or make arrangements within five banking days.
At arraignment on January 27, 1993, petitioner pleaded not guilty and trial followed. The private complainant, Luviminda Macasieb, testified that she operated a rediscounting business and that her agent, Arturo Estrada, released P29,750.00 to petitioner after telephone arrangements; petitioner issued two postdated checks to cover the amount. The checks were deposited on maturity but were returned stamped “ACCOUNT CLOSED.” Macasieb sent a demand letter through counsel; petitioner allegedly failed to pay.
Petitioner admitted issuing the checks but asserted she had already paid the amounts to complainant and challenged the sufficiency and admissibility of complainant’s Statement of Account. The trial court, finding the prosecution proved the elements of the offense, convicted petitioner on both counts on August 3, 1993, imposed imprisonment and fines, ordered indemnification and interest, and entered judgment as quoted in the records.
On appeal the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CR No. 15031 affirmed the trial court’s conviction in a Decision dated April 19, 1995 and denied petitioner’s m...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove, as a procedural prerequisite to invoking the prima facie presumption under Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22, that petitioner received notice of dishonor so that the five‑banking‑day period to pay or make arrangements could be reckoned?
- Did the evidence (including the Statement of Account and private complainant’s testimony) establish that petitioner had paid the amounts of the subject checks prior to demand, thereby negativing the ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)