G.R. No. 197475 - Montelibano vs. Yap

Private complainant Linda Yap advanced a loan to petitioner Mark Montelibano for his business needs.
In connection with the loan, petitioner issued a Metrobank – Cebu Guadalupe Branch check dated May 31, 2001, in the amount of P2,612,500.00.

When the check was presented for payment, it was dishonored due to the fact that the account was closed.
A demand letter dated June 21, 2001, was issued by private complainant Linda Yap notifying petitioner of the check’s dishonor and demanding payment.

Petitioner was charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP Blg. 22) through an Information alleging that he knowingly issued the check without sufficient funds.
The Information asserted that petitioner issued the check with deliberate intent to gain and cause damage, despite being aware of his insufficient funds.

The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) initially directed the issuance of a bench warrant for petitioner’s failure to appear for arraignment and pre-trial settings.
At a subsequent arraignment on March 10, 2004, petitioner pleaded not guilty and both parties moved for the termination of pre-trial on the ground of a possible amicable settlement, which was granted by the court.
The MTCC allowed petitioner an opportunity to file counter-affidavits and evidence; however, petitioner failed to submit any evidence despite multiple postponements of the prosecution’s presentation of evidence.

On October 20, 2004, the prosecution presented the testimony of Nelson Arendain, an employee of the private complainant, confirming that the check was issued and subsequently dishonored.
The prosecution additionally presented the demand letter as documentary evidence, which included the critical date of receipt.
Petitioner repeatedly failed to appear for the cross-examination and for the reception of evidence, resulting in the MTCC deeming his right to present evidence as waived despite a later motion for reconsideration that temporarily allowed the filing of evidence.

The MTCC ultimately found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to imprisonment and ordering him to pay the check’s amount with interest.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTCC’s decision, emphasizing that petitioner’s failure to appear equated to a waiver of his right to present evidence.
Petitioner’s subsequent elevation of the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) was dismissed on a technical ground – failure to attach a certified true copy of the MTCC decision as required by the Rules of Court – although petitioner later submitted the document via a motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari, raising both procedural and substantive issues regarding the dismissal of his petition by the CA and the merits of his conviction.
His arguments focused on the alleged failure of the prosecution to properly identify him in open court, the disputed sufficiency and separate marking of the date of receipt of the demand letter, and whether the sole witness was properly authorized to testify.

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred by dismissing petitioner’s petition for review on technical grounds (failure to initially attach a certified true copy of the MTCC decision) even though petitioner later complied with the requirement.

Whether the petitioner’s conviction should be reversed on the grounds that he was not identified in open court by the prosecution’s sole witness, thereby raising reasonable doubt as to his identity as the issuer of the check.
Whether the private complainant’s witness was unauthorized to testify and if such lack of authority undermines the prosecution’s case.
Whether the failure to separately mark and offer the date of receipt in the demand letter precluded the presumption of knowledge on the part of the accused regarding his insufficient funds.